get_account_infoRetrieve the connected account’s email, plan, and usage limits to confirm the connection works before running publishing or scheduling tasks.
Return the connected Upload-Post account: email, plan and usage limits. Useful as a first call to confirm the connection works before doing real work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful framing that results are scoped to the currently connected account (an auth dependency), but says nothing about failure behavior when the connection is invalid. A 3 is appropriate given the lower bar set by 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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, and the substance (what is returned) is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint.
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 documenting return values and annotations covering safety, plus no parameters, the description covers nearly everything needed. The only minor omission is what happens when the connection is not authenticated, which would matter for the 'confirm the connection works' use case.
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 per the baseline this is a 4. There is no parameter semantics for the description to add.
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 and resource ('Return the connected Upload-Post account') and enumerates the fields returned (email, plan, usage limits). It is clearly account-level and distinguishable by implication from siblings like get_platform_metrics and list_users, though it never names those alternatives 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?
Gives a concrete usage recommendation: 'Useful as a first call to confirm the connection works before doing real work.' That is a clear when-to-use signal, but it offers no when-not-to-use or named alternative for account details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.