plaid_identity_getRetrieve identity data—names, emails, phone numbers, and addresses—held by the institution for each account using an item_id.
Calls /identity/get. Returns names, emails, phone numbers and addresses the institution holds for each account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | item_id from plaid_sandbox_item_create (or a raw access_token you already hold) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'returns', but does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, that permissions may be needed, or that the item must be in a specific state. The description is accurate but minimal, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
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?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences that directly state the operation and output. Every word adds value, and the endpoint is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential output (the four data types). It does not mention error conditions or authentication requirements, but these are likely secondary for a simple get. Given the simplicity, the description is sufficient, though it could mention that the item must be active or that results vary by institution.
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 schema fully documents the single parameter (item_id) with a clear description, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to restate parameter details.
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?
The description explicitly names the API endpoint (/identity/get) and the exact data returned (names, emails, phone numbers, addresses). This distinguishes it from siblings like plaid_accounts_get or plaid_auth_get, which focus on different data. The purpose is unambiguous and action-specific.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain what differentiates identity data from account or balance data, nor does it mention prerequisites like a valid item_id or a linked item. An agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.