GetV1InstancesCustomersVirtualAccountsByIdRetrieve a specific virtual account's details using instance, customer, and account IDs to verify or manage payment information.
Retrieve Virtual Account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| customer_id | Yes | Customer ID | |
| instance_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no note on what is returned, error behavior for a missing virtual account, or scoping to instance/customer.
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?
It is a three-word fragment with no waste but also no information density; brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.
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 requiring three opaque prefixed identifiers with no output schema, the description should explain the instance/customer/virtual-account hierarchy and expected response. None of that is present, leaving the definition inadequate for correct invocation.
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 only 33% — customer_id has a 'Customer ID' description, while id and instance_id rely solely on 15-character examples. The description does not compensate at all, leaving ambiguity about the id prefix types (bk_ vs re_ vs in_) and the parent-child scoping among the three required IDs.
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 is 'Retrieve Virtual Account', which essentially restates the tool name and title without adding scope. It never distinguishes this single-record fetch from the sibling list endpoint GetV1InstancesCustomersVirtualAccounts or the nearby update/delete variants.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the collection endpoint GetV1InstancesCustomersVirtualAccounts or PutV1InstancesCustomersVirtualAccountsById. An agent must infer selection purely from the tool name's 'ById' suffix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.