get_accountRetrieve Bannerbear account details for the current or specified private workspace profile. Check account-level scopes, locks, and credits.
GET /v5/account. Current Bannerbear V5 operation; provider scopes, locks and credits apply. Read operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private workspace profile label; no fallback to another profile key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read operation' adds nothing. The one genuinely additive clause is 'provider scopes, locks and credits apply', which hints at auth scope and cost implications not captured by annotations. It does not explain what happens when the optional account is omitted.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, with the leading sentence identifying the endpoint. Some fragments ('Current Bannerbear V5 operation') are boilerplate that don't earn their place, but there is no padding or verbosity.
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 single-parameter read with full annotation coverage, the essentials are covered, but the description omits what the call returns and how behavior changes when the optional 'account' parameter is absent, which matters given the 'no fallback' note in the schema.
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 100%, so the single 'account' parameter (exact private workspace profile label, no fallback) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics about this parameter, so the baseline 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 names the resource (account) via the REST path 'GET /v5/account', which implies a retrieve operation, so the agent can infer intent. However, it never states in prose what the tool returns or how it differs from the sibling list_accounts. It reads largely as a restatement of the name and title.
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 guidance on when to use this versus list_accounts or any other sibling. The agent must infer that 'GET a single account' is the singular counterpart to 'list_accounts', with no explicit routing or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.