Retrieve this account’s private session pack and receipt without another session charge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | ||
| account_ref | No | Native connector: persistent individual-agent scope. Reuse the same reference on every call; omit to use the existing default account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / account_refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Native connector: persistent individual-agent scope. Reuse the same reference on every call; omit to use the existing default account.",
+ "maxLength": 80,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read. The description adds useful context that the returned data is account-private and that no billing occurs, but omits auth requirements, whether the session must exist, or how session_id maps to the returned pack.
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 no filler. The key behavior (retrieve, no extra charge) is stated immediately, though it could be marginally clearer about what the pack contains.
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 two-parameter read tool with a readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It does not describe the return contents in enough detail for an agent to judge usefulness, and the relationship between session_id and the retrieved pack is unstated.
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?
Schema coverage is 50%; account_ref already carries a schema description, and session_id (uuid) is self-evident. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (session pack and receipt) scoped to 'this account'. It is distinguishable from start_session/complete_session by being a read operation, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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 phrase 'without another session charge' implies this is a re-fetch/recovery operation rather than a new session, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are given.
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.