get_individual_detailsRetrieve personal account holder details from Starling Bank, including title, name, date of birth, email, and phone for identity or contact checks.
Personal account holders: title, name, date of birth, email and phone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the returned data (the specific personal fields), but says nothing about whose record is returned, auth requirements, or scope limits.
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 compact fragment with no filler, and the scoping term ('Personal account holders') is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the fragmentary style loses a little clarity compared with a full sentence.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and the field list does that reasonably well. What it omits is the key ambiguity for a zero-argument getter: which individual's details are returned (the authenticated holder?), leaving the agent without full context.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description's field list is essentially return-value documentation rather than parameter semantics.
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 names the resource (personal account holders) and enumerates the fields returned (title, name, date of birth, email, phone), which lets an agent infer it retrieves an individual's details. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no explicit verb, and it never distinguishes itself from similarly-named siblings like get_account_holder or get_joint_account_details, which also concern personal account holders.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. The agent is left to infer the use case from the name alone, despite many overlapping sibling getters (get_account_holder, get_joint_account_details, get_sole_trader_details).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.