Retrieve a concise account summary covering credit balance, subscription status, and storage usage to answer questions about available credits and account limits.
Баланс кредитов, подписка и занятое место в хранилище — короткая сводка. Для вопроса «сколько кредитов» использовать это.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the result is a short combined summary (credits + subscription + storage), but says nothing about freshness, auth requirements, or what happens with multiple accounts.
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 that front-loads the covered resources, followed by a short usage trigger; every clause earns its place. Slightly terse given the undocumented parameter, but no waste.
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 read-only summary with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what data comes back. It is incomplete regarding the 'account' selector and its default behaviour, which matters because there are multiple account-related siblings.
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% for the single 'account' parameter, so the description must carry the meaning and it does not — it never mentions the parameter, whether it is optional, or what format it takes. An agent cannot tell whether omitting it returns the default account's overview.
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 specific resources — credit balance, subscription, and storage usage — plus the verb 'short summary', so the agent knows this is an aggregated overview rather than a single-metric call. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from neighbours such as neurover_balance or neurover_subscriptions, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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 one concrete trigger: use this for the question 'how many credits'. That is clear positive guidance, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer neurover_balance or neurover_subscriptions), so routing among the several account-related siblings is left partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.