account_statusCheck whether Google Search Console is connected, when the 14-day trial ends, and if Pro access is active.
Whether Google Search Console is connected, when the 14-day trial ends, and whether Pro access is active. Does not query Search Console and does not include a price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real scope information beyond that: it clarifies the tool performs no Search Console query (a meaningful nuance given openWorldHint=true) and that no pricing data is returned, heading off a plausible misconception about a billing/status tool.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the substantive content (what it reports) front-loaded and the disambiguating caveats trailing. The 'no price' note is short and earns its place by preventing a wrong expectation.
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 an output schema present, return values need no prose, and with zero parameters and full annotation coverage there is little else to document. The description covers what the tool reports and what it does not touch, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description's field enumeration (connected / trial end / Pro access) usefully frames the response shape even though no inputs exist.
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 (account status) and enumerates exactly what it returns: connection state, trial end date, Pro access. The sentence 'Does not query Search Console' cleanly separates it from all eight siblings, which are Search Console data-query tools, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.
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?
The exclusion ('does not query Search Console') implicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool, but there is no positive when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage is inferable from purpose but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.