get_accountRetrieve PromptEden team, plan, and usage details without using credits. Check account status and current resource consumption via GET /api/v1/account.
Get PromptEden team, plan, and usage details via GET /api/v1/account. Does not use credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | No | ||
| team | No | ||
| usage | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context in 'Does not use credits,' a billing-side-effect disclosure not available from any structured field, though it omits auth/permission requirements.
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, zero waste, with the resource and endpoint front-loaded and the cost constraint following. Every clause carries information.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, parameters are empty, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description only needs to carry purpose and cost behavior, which it does. A note on authentication would have made it fully 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?
Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing needs to be compensated for at the parameter level and the description appropriately stays silent on 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?
Specific verb (Get) plus resource (account) and even enumerates what the resource covers (team, plan, usage details), plus the underlying endpoint. No sibling tool overlaps with account retrieval, so no differentiation is needed, but the description names no alternative to position against, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for account/plan/usage lookups, and 'Does not use credits' gives a light cost-based signal for calling it. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.