pcloud_get_user_infoRetrieve the authenticated pCloud user's profile information and current storage quota usage.
Get the authenticated pCloud account's profile and quota usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.5.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, but the description does not explicitly state safety, authentication requirements, or failure behavior; these are minor gaps for a simple no-parameter info lookup.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and scope.
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 zero parameters, low complexity, and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. There are no missing invocation requirements that an agent would need beyond the stated purpose.
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?
There are no parameters, so the 100% schema coverage makes additional parameter explanation unnecessary. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs, earning the baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool.
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 clearly identifies the resource (the authenticated pCloud account) and the specific data returned (profile and quota usage). It is easily distinguished from sibling file/folder operations and auth flow tools, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.
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?
The description provides clear context: this tool is for account-level profile and quota information, not for file operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter read-only lookup the intended usage is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.