get_accountRetrieve the saved Old School RuneScape account's name, mode, and source to confirm which account is currently active.
Use when asked which account is saved. Returns the saved name and mode and where they came from.
| 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the call returns—name, mode, and origin ('where they came from')—which is meaningful since there is no output schema. It doesn't discuss errors or the case where no account is saved.
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 with no waste, and the usage trigger is front-loaded ahead of the return description. Well-sized for a zero-parameter read tool, though slightly terse.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the returned fields. The safety profile is handled by annotations. It could note behavior when no account is saved, but for this simple lookup it is largely complete.
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 and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify regarding inputs.
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 (returns the saved account) and enumerates the returned fields: saved name, mode, and provenance. An agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling set_account, though the read/lookup framing makes the distinction reasonably clear.
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?
It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when asked which account is saved.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., contrasting with set_account), so it falls just below the top tier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.