Retrieve billing account details for a Postman team to review subscription and payment information.
Gets Postman billing account details for the given team
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_accounts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'Gets' data, implying a read operation, but does not mention whether authentication is required, what happens if the team is not found, or any other side effects. The description is insufficient to understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant information and efficiently communicates the core function.
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?
Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain how the team is determined (likely from authentication context) nor what the billing account details include. The description is adequate for a trivial tool but lacks completeness for effective use.
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 input schema has no parameters and is 100% covered by the schema itself. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, but the description's phrase 'for the given team' misleadingly suggests there is a team parameter when none exists in the schema. This creates confusion and negatively impacts the score.
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 states the verb 'Gets' and the resource 'Postman billing account details', and specifies the scope 'for the given team'. This distinguishes it from other get_* tools like get_authenticated_user or get_workspace. However, the mention of 'given team' is confusing because the input schema has no parameters to specify a team, slightly reducing clarity.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_account_invoices or get_authenticated_user. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions under which the tool should or should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.