Get the API key owner's plan, monthly quota, remaining quota and credit balance.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_account"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. "Get" implies a read and the listed fields hint at a read-only account-inspection operation, but it does not state permissions needed, whether the call consumes quota, rate limits, or error behavior for an invalid/expired API key.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the returned data enumerated; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the return values (plan, monthly and remaining quota, credit balance) in the schema's place. It stops short of describing value formats or units, but for a zero-parameter read tool this covers what an agent needs to call it.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is an empty object and coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Specific verb ("Get") plus a defined resource ("the API key owner's") and an enumeration of the fields returned (plan, monthly quota, remaining quota, credit balance). The sole sibling, generate_sales_list, is unrelated, so no sibling differentiation is required here.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is for checking the authenticated account's quota or billing state, but the description never says when to call it, whether it costs quota, or what to do if the key is invalid. No explicit alternatives exist among siblings, so the gap is modest.
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.