3DLogo.io

Get account and plan

get_account

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use to know what the connected account can do before acting: plan, remaining Generate credits (period and purchased), project and share-link counts against their caps, and export limits. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`plan`	Yes
`email`	Yes
`isPro`	Yes
`isUltra`	Yes
`accountUrl`	Yes	Absolute https URL the user can open
`maxImagePx`	Yes
`shareLimit`	Yes
`projectCount`	Yes
`projectLimit`	Yes
`creditsExpireAt`	Yes
`creditsRollOver`	Yes
`exportWatermark`	Yes
`canExportHdVideo`	Yes
`creditsRemaining`	Yes
`purchasedCredits`	Yes
`canUsePaidDensity`	Yes
`periodCreditsRemaining`	Yes
`purchasedCreditsExpireAt`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed8 schema fields changedSep 6, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedOutput schema / properties / creditsExpireAt / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / creditsExpireAt / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / name / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / name / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / purchasedCreditsExpireAt / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / purchasedCreditsExpireAt / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the account-level scope and the specific limit categories, but 'Read-only' only repeats the annotations. No hidden side effects are disclosed or needed for this read-only tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary use case before enumerating the specific data categories. The final 'Read-only.' is slightly redundant with annotations but does not waste significant space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: when to use it, what account information it exposes, and the fact that it is safe. There is no missing critical information an agent would need to call this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description appropriately focuses on the return semantics rather than parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('the connected account') and the action ('know what... can do'), and enumerates the data returned: plan, remaining Generate credits, counts against caps, and export limits. It does not explicitly contrast this with the sibling get_plans, but the phrase 'connected account' makes the current-account focus reasonably distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear contextual guidance: use this tool 'before acting' to understand account capabilities and limits. It does not state explicit exclusions or name alternative tools such as get_plans, but the timing and purpose are clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All 3DLogo.io tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources, but several overlapping pairs exist: search/list_projects both find projects by title, fetch/get_project both return project details, and upload_logo_image/request_logo_image_upload are two upload paths. The descriptions help clarify boundaries, but an agent could still misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, list_, get_, update_, delete_). Minor deviations like bare 'fetch' and 'search', plus the mixed '3d' in generate_3d_model vs '3D' in descriptions, keep it from being perfectly consistent.

Tool Count2/5

At 31 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where agent tool selection becomes cognitively heavy. While the server covers a broad platform, several tools are near-redundant and could be consolidated, making the count feel inflated.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers project lifecycle, sharing/publishing, AI generation, uploads, materials, and account/plan management quite thoroughly. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct create_coin_project tool and no deletion for generation runs, but these are workable.

Resources

Need Help?