get_accountRetrieve a complete account snapshot with profile, subscription, quotas, usage, and projects. Use this to review account details and identify current limits or resource consumption.
Full account snapshot: profile, subscription, quotas, usage, projects. Use get_quotas_and_usage for limits only; use get_account_console_kit to render a local HTML console. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description reiterates 'Read-only' and adds the 'snapshot' nature. No conflicting or unexpected behaviors are implied, though it doesn't mention additional side effects or data freshness details, which is acceptable given annotations.
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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides alternative tool guidance, with no unnecessary details or repetition.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what data is returned (profile, subscription, quotas, usage, projects) and explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools. It is complete for an agent to decide and invoke 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 has no parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially complete. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information since none 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function as a full account snapshot covering profile, subscription, quotas, usage, and projects, and distinguishes it from related tools. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (account).
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?
It explicitly instructs when to use this tool versus alternatives: use get_quotas_and_usage for limits only, and get_account_console_kit for rendering a local HTML console. This provides clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.