vibekit_accountGet VibeKit account info: plan, credit balance, and usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | Whether the call succeeded. | |
| data | No | Account info: plan, credits, usage, and API key status. | |
| error | No | Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Result envelope: ok=true with data on success, ok=false with error on failure.",
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Account info: plan, credits, usage, and API key status."
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "description": "Whether the call succeeded.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation. It adds value by specifying the returned fields (plan, credit balance, usage), providing behavioral context beyond 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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Efficiently communicates purpose and scope.
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?
Given no parameters, clear annotations, and an output schema (implied), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters; baseline 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'VibeKit account info', and lists specific fields (plan, credit balance, usage). It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which target account info.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for retrieving account info, but lacks exclusions or context about alternatives.
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.