check_balanceShow the calling key's profile: email, credits remaining, total purchased, whether a card is on file, and how many active API keys exist. Free — does not consume credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: 'Free — does not consume credits' clarifies billing impact, and 'calling key's' specifies scope. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first lists the exact output fields, second states the free behavior. Every word is meaningful, and the most important action ('Show the calling key's profile') is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly enumerates all returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what to expect. Given the simplicity (no params, read-only, free), the description fully covers behavioral and return-value information without excess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing to clarify. The description correctly omits parameter details, keeping focus on the return data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('calling key's profile') with detailed output fields (email, credits, total purchased, card on file, active API keys). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools that search emails or handle checkout/topup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is unambiguous: this tool shows account/balance info for the calling key. No alternative sibling tool serves this purpose, so exclusions are unnecessary. The description implies when to use it by enumerating the exact data returned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The find_* tools all relate to email discovery but differ by input (domain, LinkedIn URL, person+company), and the descriptions clarify these distinctions. However, find_all overlaps with several individual tools, and find_company_emails vs find_decision_maker_email could cause slight confusion despite their specific purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_balance, find_company_emails, lookup_company_website, etc.). Even the more generic find_all fits the pattern. No mixed conventions or inconsistent casing.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for an email enrichment service with billing support. It covers core enrichment operations and account management without unnecessary bloat.
The domain is well covered: website lookup, various email finding methods, and a combined find_all. Billing is handled with balance, checkout, and top-up. A minor gap is lack of API key management (only count is shown), but it doesn't cause dead ends.