get_accountCheck the account's sending and deletion permissions and how many more inboxes it can create.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| can_send | Yes | Whether this account may send. Remaining allowance is in get_outbound_quota. | |
| can_delete | Yes | ||
| inbox_limit | Yes | ||
| inbox_allowance | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / can_send / descriptionPrevious value: -"Permission to send, not remaining recipient allowance."New value: +"Whether this account may send. Remaining allowance is in get_outbound_quota."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the content dimension (what permissions and capacity are reported), which is useful but modest; it says nothing about freshness, scope (account-wide vs. workspace), or failure behavior.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the three data points it returns. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile for this parameterless read. What remains missing is sibling differentiation against the policy/quota getters, which is the main thing an agent still has to infer.
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 the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing parameter-wise for the description to compensate for.
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 ('Check') and enumerates the exact resources returned: sending permissions, deletion permissions, and remaining inbox capacity. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings that overlap in scope, notably get_sending_policy, get_outbound_quota, and get_receiving_policy, which an agent could easily confuse with this 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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is mentioned. With several siblings covering policy/quota concepts (get_sending_policy, get_outbound_quota, get_receiving_policy), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
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.