lookup_account
Look up a public account by email; no API key required
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
Manto — 馒头新闻
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: 'no API key required', meaning authentication is not needed. However, it does not describe the return value, error handling, or confirm that the operation is read-only beyond the verb 'look up'.
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 entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'Look up a public account by email; no API key required'. Every word earns its place and the most important information appears first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should state what the lookup returns and what happens if the account is not found. It covers purpose, parameter, and auth, but the absence of return/error semantics leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by specifying that the lookup is 'by email', giving clear functional meaning to the sole email parameter. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Look up'), a specific resource ('public account'), and the lookup key ('by email'). It also includes a distinguishing qualifier ('public') that separates it from sibling get_account, and the auth note ('no API key required') further differentiates it from likely authenticated alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: to look up a public account by email without needing an API key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_account, leaving the routing decision somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, such as account creation versus lookup versus article listing. Minor overlap exists between get_account (which includes recent content) and list_account_articles, but the descriptions are clear enough to avoid serious misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming mostly follows a clear verb_noun pattern, e.g., create_account, get_recharge, remove_content, set_promotion. A few tools like publish and search are bare verbs, creating a minor inconsistency, but the overall pattern remains predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
Ten tools is well-scoped for a news content management platform covering accounts, publishing, searching, recharges, and promotion. Each tool serves a distinct functional need without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
The server covers core content lifecycle operations with publish (create/update), remove_content (delete), list_account_articles (read), and search. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit get/delete for accounts or a way to view current promotion settings, but the main workflows are supported.