getAccountBalance: Get the current account balance for the authenticated user. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionKey | No | Session key (osk_...) returned by checkDeviceLoginStatus. Pass it on every call when logged in via the in-chat device flow; omit when connected via OAuth. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| balance | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| currency | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "balance": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "currency": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only adds the authentication requirement. That is useful but does not provide deeper behavioral context such as staleness, caching, or response shape.
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 description is very brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The redundant 'getAccountBalance:' prefix mildly repeats the tool name, but the content is otherwise efficient and free of filler.
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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The authentication requirement is stated, and annotations cover safety, though it could note when to prefer this over similar account-related getters.
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%, with the sessionKey parameter already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current account balance,' and adds scope with 'for the authenticated user.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like getAccountSummary, so it stops short of 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?
The only guidance is that authentication is required, which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools or conditional selection criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs, but there are several overlapping clusters: six domain-suggestion tools (addPrefixToDomain, addSuffixToDomain, generateDomainSuggestions, bulkDomainSuggestions, spinDomainWords, suggestAlternatives) and overlapping account-info tools (getMyProfile, getAccountSummary, getRecentActivity, getMyAuditLogs). Descriptions help, but with 105 tools an agent will regularly face near-identical choices.
The dominant convention is verbNoun camelCase (createContact, listDnsRecords, updateNameservers), which is readable and predictable. Deviations exist in the osirApp* and osirSite* families, where the noun precedes the verb, and a few names like suggestAlternatives and spinDomainWords break the pattern.
105 tools is far beyond a coherent MCP server surface; even if the platform genuinely spans domains, DNS, email, VPS, billing, and app hosting, this should be split into focused servers. Many tools are single-purpose getters that add selection overhead rather than earning their place as one integrated set.
The covered services have broad CRUD/lifecycle coverage: contacts, DNS, hosts, domains, email, VPS, SSH keys, invoices, and Osir apps all have create/read/update/delete paths. Some registrar-specific operations (e.g., contact reassignment after registration, domain deletion/redemption) are missing, and the sheer sprawl makes coverage hard to verify.