Verify the account-owned API token used for the request (checks it is valid and active) for a Cloudflare account.
Verify the account-owned API token used for the request (checks it is valid and active) for a Cloudflare account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | required,The ID of the Cloudflare account |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the check semantics (valid and active) and implies a read-only verification, but does not state what happens on failure (error vs boolean), whether it accepts a token argument or uses the caller's token, or any rate/permission constraints.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical clarifies the verb, though it slightly interrupts the flow; nothing is wasted.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the operation but leaves the return value (pass/fail shape) and token source unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents account_id. The description adds nothing syntactic about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (verify) and resource (the account-owned API token used for the request), and clarifies what is checked (valid and active). This distinguishes it in spirit from sibling reads like get_account_token and list_account_tokens, though it never names them explicitly.
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 phrase 'the account-owned API token used for the request' gives implicit context for when this applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing against the many sibling token tools (get_account_token, list_account_tokens, list_token_permission_groups).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.