EyalSec MCP Server

Official

by EyalSec

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Account

get_account

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve account profile, limits and permissions, API key scope and expiry, plus es-python setup progress with the next step. Read-only check for MCP clients.

Instructions

The account's profile, limits and permissions, the API key's scope and expiry (never the key itself), and how far es-python setup has got, with the next step.

Tool call template

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": "get_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context beyond them, notably that the API key is never returned ('never the key itself') and that setup progress plus a next step is included. That security note and the setup-state disclosure are the kind of traits annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no filler; content is front-loaded with the most substantive item (profile/limits/permissions) first. Slightly parenthetical but entirely earned.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description adequately explains what the call yields. Nothing critical is missing for a no-argument read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is nothing for the description to clarify in terms of arguments and it does not pretend otherwise.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (the account) and enumerates its contents clearly: profile, limits, permissions, API key scope/expiry, and es-python setup progress. It is specific enough to distinguish from the list_*/event_* siblings, though it lacks a crisp action verb and never explicitly contrasts itself against alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent can infer it should call this when it needs account-level context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. Adequate for a zero-argument getter, but no real routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.