Retrieve BVoiz account details, including current credit balance, email, permissions, and account status; optionally check a specific account using an API key.
Xem thông tin tài khoản BVoiz, số dư credits hiện tại, email, quyền hạn và trạng thái tài khoản.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | BVoiz API Key nếu muốn kiểm tra tài khoản cụ thể |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does imply a non-mutating read and lists the fields returned, which is useful. However it does not state whether the call is read-only in a machine-checkable sense, what happens on an invalid/missing API key, or whether a default key is used — notable gaps for a zero-annotation 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler that earns its place. It is efficiently sized for a simple read tool, though it offers no structure beyond one flat clause.
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?
The listed return fields partially compensate for the absence of an output schema, and the single optional parameter keeps the tool simple. Still missing is any guidance on the no-api_key case and error/auth behavior, which an agent needs to invoke it confidently.
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%, so the sole api_key parameter is already documented. The description adds no meaning about the parameter — critically, it never explains the default behavior when api_key is left empty (0 required parameters), which is the one piece of semantics an agent would want.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Xem thông tin tài khoản BVoiz') and enumerates what is returned (credits balance, email, permissions, status). This clearly distinguishes it from all siblings, which deal with voices, synthesis, pricing, and history — no explicit sibling comparison is offered, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the important case where api_key is omitted. Usage is only loosely implied by the verb 'Xem'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.