ActiveCampaign MCP

retrieve_an_account

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves an existing ActiveCampaign account by its ID. Use to view account details without making changes.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Accounts · GET /accounts/{id}

Retrieve an account

Fetches data. Makes no changes to your ActiveCampaign account.

Retrieve an existing account

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "retrieve_an_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Account's ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it is a GET request and 'makes no changes', which aligns with annotations but adds minimal extra insight. No disclosure of error handling or rate limits is provided.

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?

The description contains redundant phrases: 'Retrieve an account' appears twice. The first line with emoji and path is informative but could be integrated. Overall, it is somewhat verbose for a simple tool and could be made more concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at the return value (e.g., account details). It only says 'Fetches data', which is vague. For a simple read operation, this omission reduces completeness. Annotations are helpful but do not cover return semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single required parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Account's ID'. The description does not add further meaning, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. No additional context like example values or format is provided.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves an account by ID, using verbs like 'Retrieve' and 'Fetches'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_all_accounts' and 'create_an_account_new' by focusing on a single account lookup. However, it could be more specific about the returned data structure.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'list_all_accounts' or other retrieve tools). An agent must infer that it's for fetching a specific account by ID, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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

Deploy Server