get_accountRetrieves details for a connected social media account, including profile, follower count, and token health, to verify connection status and expiration.
One connected account: profile, follower count, token health (disconnectedAt / tokenExpiresAt).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that token health fields (disconnectedAt / tokenExpiresAt) are surfaced, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about behavior when the account is missing or the token is expired.
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 compact sentence with the resource and its contents front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The nominal fragment style is terse but readable.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully names the return contents, which is the right thing to do. However, for a lookup tool it omits the one input's meaning and any not-found/error behavior, leaving clear gaps.
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 0% and the description does not compensate at all: accountId is never mentioned or explained. The description only talks about returned fields, not about what identifier to supply.
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-implied resource ('One connected account') and enumerates the returned contents: profile, follower count, token health. The singular framing implicitly separates it from list_accounts, though the description never names that sibling.
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?
Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. An agent must infer from 'One' that this is the single-account fetch rather than list_accounts, and nothing is said about refresh_account or check_setup, which could plausibly be chosen instead for token problems.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.