Retrieve a control account by ID to view its storage usage, billing data, and sub-account counts, including optional deleted sub-accounts, for quick account oversight.
Get a specific Control Account by ID with detailed information including storage, billing, and sub-account counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| controlAccountId | Yes | Control Account ID | |
| includeDeletedSubAccounts | No | Include deleted sub-accounts in counts |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating what the response includes ('storage, billing, and sub-account counts'). It does not contradict the annotation and gives enough detail for a read operation without claiming side effects.
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 focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides the most important response details without fluff or repetition.
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 read-only get-by-ID tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the return content ('storage, billing, and sub-account counts'). It lacks guidance on alternatives and error/edge-case behavior, but those are reasonably inferable and partially covered by the readOnlyHint annotation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight context by mentioning sub-account counts, which relates to the includeDeletedSubAccounts parameter, but it does not meaningfully expand on either parameter beyond the schema.
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 names the specific verb ('Get'), the resource ('Control Account'), and a unique identifier ('by ID'). It also lists the kind of information returned ('storage, billing, and sub-account counts'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_control_accounts and get_control_account_usage.
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 when to use it: when you have a specific control account ID and need its detailed information. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_control_accounts or get_control_account_usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.