Check your LQWD agent account profile. Returns your account tier, status, and registration date. Always free. Authenticate by sending the HTTP header Authorization: Bearer <your_api_key> on MCP requests (where is the lqwd_... key returned by lqwd_register).
| 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?
The description describes a read-only check operation ('Check', 'Returns'), but the annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, directly contradicting the described behavior. This is a serious inconsistency that would confuse an agent.
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?
The description is two sentences: it front-loads the purpose and return values, then provides necessary authentication instructions. No unnecessary 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?
While the description covers purpose, return values, and authentication, the annotation contradiction leaves the tool's actual behavior ambiguous. Without an output schema, the description should also clarify any side effects or error conditions, but it does not. This gap lowers completeness.
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 no parameters, so the description needs no parameter explanations. Baseline of 4 applies since 0 params.
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 'Check your LQWD agent account profile' and lists the returned fields (tier, status, registration date). It is specific about the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like lqwd_check_channel_status or lqwd_register.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It mentions authentication and that it's always free, but does not explain when to choose this over lqwd_check_channel_status or lqwd_register.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: lqwd_register creates an account, lqwd_check_balance retrieves account profile info, and lqwd_check_channel_status reports channel state. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.
All tool names follow the same pattern: lowercase snake_case with an lqwd_ prefix and a verb_noun structure. This is perfectly consistent and predictable.
With only 3 tools, the set is well-scoped and each tool serves a clear, necessary function for the server's purpose of registration and status checking. It fits within the typical 3-15 tool range and feels neither bloated nor sparse.
The tooling covers the full core workflow: register, check account, check channel status. Minor gaps exist such as no way to update node_uri or revoke an API key, but these are not critical for the stated scope and are easily worked around.