get_accountRetrieves account details plus configured billing and execution availability using an API key, helping verify account-specific access before submitting servers or using account features.
Requires API key. Read account and configured billing/execution availability. Generic launch credits are not sold.
| 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?
The provided annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false). The description adds valuable operational behavioral context by stating 'Requires API key,' which is a necessary operational requirement for successful execution.
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 definition is highly efficient, using three short sentences to cover operational requirements (API key), function (read account/availability), and limitations (credit status). The information is front-loaded and highly relevant.
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?
Given the low complexity (no parameters, fully annotated), the definition is robust and complete. It clearly communicates the boundaries of the tool's functionality, which is sufficient for a safe and correct invocation.
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?
Since the input schema has 0 parameters, parameter semantics add zero specific meaning. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description simply confirms the read operation without needing to elaborate on non-existent parameters.
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 clearly states the primary function: reading account status, billing, and execution availability. While it uses the general term 'account,' the context provided by the title and siblings clarifies the resource, avoiding ambiguity.
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 provides a specific constraint ('Generic launch credits are not sold'), which guides the agent on the scope of useful information. However, it does not provide explicit 'when' scenarios to differentiate this tool from other similar retrieval functions among its many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.