Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_get_account

Retrieve a specific account from the Pylon customer support platform by providing its unique ID or external identifier.

Instructions

Get a specific account by ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe account ID or external ID

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:62-74 (registration)
    Registers the pylon_get_account MCP tool, including input schema (id: string) and handler that calls PylonClient.getAccount and formats the response as text.
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_get_account',
    	'Get a specific account by ID',
    	{
    		id: z.string().describe('The account ID or external ID'),
    	},
    	async ({ id }) => {
    		const result = await client.getAccount(id);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • The core handler logic for retrieving an account via API GET request to /accounts/{id}, using the private request method.
    async getAccount(id: string): Promise<SingleResponse<Account>> {
    	return this.request<SingleResponse<Account>>('GET', `/accounts/${id}`);
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of an Account object returned by the Pylon API.
    export interface Account {
    	id: string;
    	name: string;
    	domains?: string[];
    	primary_domain?: string;
    	logo_url?: string;
    	owner_id?: string;
    	channels?: object[];
    	custom_fields?: object;
    	external_ids?: object[];
    	tags?: string[];
    }
  • Private helper method used by all client methods to perform authenticated HTTP requests to the Pylon API.
    private async request<T>(
    	method: string,
    	path: string,
    	body?: object,
    ): Promise<T> {
    	const url = `${PYLON_API_BASE}${path}`;
    	const headers: Record<string, string> = {
    		Authorization: `Bearer ${this.apiToken}`,
    		'Content-Type': 'application/json',
    		Accept: 'application/json',
    	};
    
    	const response = await fetch(url, {
    		method,
    		headers,
    		body: body ? JSON.stringify(body) : undefined,
    	});
    
    	if (!response.ok) {
    		const errorText = await response.text();
    		throw new Error(
    			`Pylon API error: ${response.status} ${response.statusText} - ${errorText}`,
    		);
    	}
    
    	return response.json() as Promise<T>;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation but doesn't clarify whether it's read-only, what permissions are required, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, or what the response format looks like. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what an 'account' represents in this context, what data is returned, or how errors are handled. Given the sibling tools include various account operations (create, delete, update, list, search), more context about this specific retrieval operation would be helpful.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or ID sourcing guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific account by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like pylon_get_contact or pylon_get_issue, which follow the same pattern for different resources.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pylon_list_accounts or pylon_search_accounts. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JustinBeckwith/pylon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server