whm_get_accountRetrieves a cPanel account's full summary, including resource limits and suspension details, by username so you can inspect or troubleshoot that account.
Get the full summary of one cPanel account, including its limits and suspension details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | cPanel account username, in lowercase. Use whm_list_domains to find the account that owns a domain. |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the payload contents ('limits and suspension details'), but it says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent or malformed user, nor about how suspension state affects returned limits.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return contents appended as a qualifier. Nothing is wasteful or padded.
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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and tells the agent broadly what comes back. A brief note on behavior for unknown usernames would make it complete, but the gaps are minor at this complexity.
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 100% and the schema itself documents the single 'user' parameter, its lowercase pattern, and a sibling pointer for finding the account that owns a domain. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the full summary of one cPanel account') and scopes it to a single account, which implicitly contrasts with the plural whm_list_accounts. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings such as whm_account_resource_usage, which could also be used to inspect a single 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no stated alternative. The phrase 'one cPanel account' hints that browsing all accounts belongs to whm_list_accounts, but the agent must infer that; the schema's pointer to whm_list_domains carries any real routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.