get_accountThe connected account and the key it acts as: environment, scopes, company name and whether one is still required (GET /v1/me), plus the UK credits left (GET /v1/usage), the Australian washes left (GET /v1/dncr) and the dead number checks left (GET /v1/dead-number). A balance the key lacks the scope for comes back as that error. Costs nothing.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: balances a key lacks scope for surface as an error rather than being omitted, and the call is free. It does not describe response shape or ordering, but the extra scope-error and cost disclosures are substantive.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource ('The connected account and the key it acts as') and then enumerates each balance, followed by a short error note and a cost note. Endpoint paths add provenance without wasting space.
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?
With no input schema, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description carries the remaining burden and does so: it enumerates the returned account fields, each balance type, and the scope-error behavior. An agent could call this correctly and interpret the result without further documentation.
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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly reflects this by not inventing any input; all listed items are outputs, not arguments.
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+resource: returns the connected account, the key's environment/scopes/company status, and remaining balances for UK credits, AU washes and dead-number checks. This clearly separates it from siblings like buy_credits or wash_au_numbers, which act on balances rather than report them.
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?
Implies usage well (call it to inspect account state and remaining balance before purchasing or running a paid operation) and 'Costs nothing' signals it is safe and free to call. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of the 5 bar.
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.