Show the Scout account's plan, watch limit, allowed cadences, and how digest emails are delivered.
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": "account_status"
}
}| 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 burden. It discloses the returned content (plan, watch limit, cadences, digest delivery), which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about permissions/auth requirements or error behavior when an account is unconfigured. For a zero-parameter read tool the risk surface is low, so a 3 is fair.
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 that enumerates exactly the returned fields. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted or buried.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is what an agent needs to know. Combined with zero parameters and a read-only nature, the definition is nearly complete; only auth/availability behavior is unaddressed.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly introduces no parameter discussion, matching the empty schema.
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?
"Show the Scout account's plan, watch limit, allowed cadences, and how digest emails are delivered" names a specific verb (Show) and a specific resource (account/plan metadata), and the field list makes it clearly distinct from the watch CRUD and scan siblings. It stops short of the top score only because it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use signal, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent can infer it is the read-only account-info call, but that inference comes from the absence of parameters and the sibling names, not from anything stated in the definition.
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.