Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kualat-mcp

kualat-mcp

by kualatLinks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get account

get_account
Read-only

Retrieve account profile, plan details, quotas, and usage counters to verify current limits and track usage.

Instructions

Account profile, plan, quotas and usage counters.

Tool call template

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_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description's only added behavior is a terse listing of the returned categories, with no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or whether 'usage counters' are per-period or cumulative — and with no output schema, that omission matters.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but the fragment form (no verb, no sentence structure) makes it read like a schema comment rather than an instruction. Brevity here comes at the cost of specification rather than from tight editing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what comes back, and four vague nouns ('profile, plan, quotas, usage counters') are not enough to know what fields to expect or how to interpret them. Nothing about account scoping or freshness of counters is provided.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to identify the account.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description is a noun phrase that lists the data returned (profile, plan, quotas, usage counters) but never states the verb; the agent must infer 'retrieve' from the name/title. It does distinguish the resource from the link/webhook siblings by content, but the purpose statement itself is a restatement of the title plus a field list.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (auth token, account scope), and no indication of when this should be preferred over other read tools. The agent gets no routing signal beyond the resource name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools