get_account_statusRetrieve account plan, usage, limits, and overage status to explain upload or release failures.
Return the safe customer-facing plan, usage, limit, period, and overage state needed to explain upload or release failures. Provider IDs are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them by characterizing the payload as 'safe customer-facing' and disclosing that provider IDs are excluded, which tells the agent the data has been redacted.
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 with no filler. The returned-content scope is front-loaded, and the redaction note follows as a short qualifier. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.
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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by enumerating the fields returned (plan, usage, limit, period, overage state) plus the redaction caveat. It does not say what happens when no account/plan exists or how errors surface, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.
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, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. The description correctly describes no inputs, so no parameter semantics are needed or missing.
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 ('Return') and a precisely scoped resource: plan, usage, limit, period, and overage state for the OtaKit account. The enumerated payload makes it unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools, which all operate on apps, bundles, releases, or previews rather than account-level status.
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?
Provides a concrete usage context: 'needed to explain upload or release failures.' That tells the agent when to reach for this tool over release-specific diagnostics. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_release_state) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context without explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.