Retrieve the full MCC account hierarchy by listing all child accounts under a specified customer ID, enabling quick visibility into account structure.
Get the MCC account hierarchy tree.
Lists all child accounts under the given MCC account.
Args: customer_id: MCC customer ID. Uses default if not provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | No |
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, which covers safety. The description adds useful behavioral context about the optional customer_id: 'Uses default if not provided.' This clarifies behavior beyond what the schema alone shows. It does not contradict the 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?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with no filler. The main purpose appears first, followed by a clarifying sentence and a concise parameter note. Every part earns its place.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is ambiguity about whether 'all child accounts' means direct children only or a recursive hierarchy tree, which matters for some callers.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining customer_id as 'MCC customer ID' and explaining the default behavior. This gives essential meaning to an otherwise bare schema parameter, though it omits format specifics like numeral vs hyphenated ID.
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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('MCC account hierarchy tree'), and the scope ('lists all child accounts under the given MCC account'). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_account_info or list_accessible_accounts.
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 implies usage: use this when you need child accounts under an MCC account. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools that might be more appropriate for retrieving a single account or accessible accounts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.