Returns the team owner account information. Requires X-API-Key (existing users can generate an API key in the web app). If headers aren't supported, pass api_key in arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Optional API key for clients that cannot set X-API-Key headers. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the X-API-Key requirement and the api_key fallback, which are useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, response shape, or side effects; 'Returns' implies read-only but is not explicit.
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 sentences with no filler: purpose comes first, followed by the prerequisite and the fallback. Every clause carries actionable information.
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?
For a zero-required-param read operation, the description plus schema is largely sufficient: it covers what is returned, how to authenticate, and the api_key fallback. It lacks response detail and error cases, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single api_key parameter is already documented with description and example. The description restates the same header-fallback behavior without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the team owner account information.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling create/delete/rotate account tools and other get_* tools focused on projects, vaults, or code analysis.
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 description provides authentication context and the header-vs-argument fallback, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use is implied by the tool name and 'Returns', yet there is no 'when not to use' or explicit sibling differentiation.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct by resource and action, but the three get-code-vault-* variants (summary, results, reports) plus get_vault create a cluster of similar-sounding retrieval tools. The use of both 'vault' and 'code-vault' in names increases the chance of misselection, though descriptions do clarify the differences.
Naming convention is inconsistent: snake_case (create_account, get_vault, list_projects) is mixed with kebab-case (create-code-vault, get-code-vault-summary, reanalyze-code-vault). The same concept is referred to as 'vault' and 'code-vault' across tool names, breaking predictability.
At 16 tools, the server is slightly over the ideal 3-15 range but still reasonable for the domain covering accounts, projects, vaults, and analysis retrieval. The count is justified by the distinct resources and operations, though a few vault-related tools could potentially be consolidated.
The server provides solid lifecycle coverage: account create/get/delete, project CRUD (minus update), vault create/read/delete/reanalyze, plus API key rotation. Minor gaps exist, such as no update methods for accounts or projects, but the core workflows are well-supported without dead ends.
