Login identity only. For channel setup: setup_get_status
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_get_profile"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| No | |||
| nickname | No | ||
| support_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / support_refAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description only adds the 'login identity only' scoping boundary. With an output schema present, there is little else for the description to disclose; a 3 is appropriate.
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 short fragments, front-loaded with the scope statement before the routing hint. No wasted words. It is arguably clipped to the edge of intelligibility, but every token earns its place.
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-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers the only thing the schema and annotations cannot convey: what this profile represents (login identity) and where the alternative lives. Adequate, if terse.
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 compensate for. 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?
States the exact scope of the resource: the login identity profile, and contrastively marks what it does not cover. An agent can distinguish it from setup_get_status and account_media_* siblings. No explicit verb, but the name plus scope makes the operation unambiguous.
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 a clear routing rule: use this for login identity, use setup_get_status for channel setup. It names the alternative and the condition that selects it, though it never states why an agent would need the login identity in the first place.
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.