account_setupInitialize or re-check your account, provision it when needed, and return your user ID and plan. CALL THIS FIRST when the user asks to set up ToolRouter, connect their account, check their account status, or get started.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the tool will 'initialize' or 'provision' the account, implying mutating side effects, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction: an agent cannot trust whether this operation changes state. Beyond that, the description does not clarify whether provisioning persists anything.
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 sentences with the key directive 'CALL THIS FIRST' front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place by either stating the action, trigger conditions, or return value.
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 zero-parameter tool, the description covers when to call, what it does, and what it returns. However, the contradiction between 'provision' and readOnlyHint leaves the side-effect model unclear, and with no output schema the agent is left without a reliable expectation of the response shape.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the empty schema is fully self-describing and there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds no parameter detail, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 a specific verb ('Initialize or re-check'), a clear resource ('your account'), and a concrete return value ('user ID and plan'). The 'CALL THIS FIRST' instruction and the listed user intents distinguish it from siblings like account_list and account_switch.
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 explicitly states when to call the tool: when the user asks to set up ToolRouter, connect their account, check account status, or get started. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'CALL THIS FIRST' guidance provides clear context.
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.
Tools are grouped by clear resource prefixes (account_, brain_, connector_, credential_, file_, job_, key_), and most actions have distinct purposes. A few boundaries overlap—brain_admin's lint action duplicates brain_lint, and account_preferences/setup/switch could momentarily confuse—but the descriptions resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant pattern is resource_verb for actions (file_read, job_cancel, key_create) and resource_noun for state views (credits_balance, brain_settings, account_preferences), which is readable. However, exceptions like discover, use_tool, top_up_credits, and feedback_request_tool break the pattern, and the set is not consistently verb_noun.
47 tools is well beyond the comfortable range; even though prefixes organize them, the agent faces a large selection surface with many narrowly scoped tools. A more consolidated set with action-based subcommands would be easier to navigate.
Core workflows are covered end-to-end: account setup and billing, connector and credential management, file CRUD, job polling, key lifecycle, brain knowledge management, and catalogue discovery/execution. Gaps are minor—outfit/persona/product/scene are list-only, connectors lack an update operation, and there is no explicit single-page brain get—but agents can generally work around them.