mcp-daktela

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_account

Retrieve full details of a specific account using its internal ID. Use list_accounts to find the ID from a company name first.

Instructions

Get full details of a single account by its internal ID.

Args: name: The account internal ID (e.g. 'account_674eda46162a8403430453'). Use list_accounts(search='...') to find the ID from a company name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations to clarify read-only behavior, error cases, or permissions. The description only says 'Get full details,' which implies a read but does not disclose what happens if the account is not found, what 'full details' includes, or any side effects. The description carries the full burden and under-delivers.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence followed by a clear args section with an example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and the single parameter, the description is mostly complete. It explains the parameter semantics and leads the user to the right listing tool. It does not discuss edge cases, but these are less critical for a straightforward get-by-ID operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that 'name' is the account internal ID, providing a concrete example, and cross-referencing list_accounts for finding the ID. This adds valuable meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: "Get full details of a single account by its internal ID." It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_accounts and get_contact.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit guidance on how to obtain the required ID via list_accounts(search='...'), which is a clear alternative for when you only know the company name. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with other getter tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.