ml_get_accountRetrieve the authenticated Mercado Livre seller's profile data: ID, nickname, reputation level, power seller status, and transaction counts and metrics.
Read-only. Return the authenticated seller's id, nickname, reputation level, power seller status, transaction counts and metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only.' merely restates structured data. The description does add what the response contains (id, nickname, reputation, transaction metrics), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or account-scoping behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the safety posture and then the return content. The 'Read-only.' clause duplicates the annotation rather than earning its place, but overall there is no padding and the payload sentence is dense and informative.
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 no-argument read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which compensates for the missing return-shape metadata. It is nearly sufficient to call correctly, with only usage framing left unstated.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and it correctly implies no input is required by framing the resource as implicit ('the authenticated seller').
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?
States a specific verb (Return) and resource (the authenticated seller's account), then enumerates the returned fields: id, nickname, reputation level, power seller status, transaction counts and metrics. This clearly distinguishes it from data-oriented siblings like ml_list_items and ml_get_item, which fetch marketplace content rather than the caller's own account.
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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites beyond 'authenticated seller'. The absence of parameters implies 'call it to get your own account', but that usage context is left entirely to inference and no sibling is named or excluded.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.