Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

google_accounts

List the connected Google accounts and the services each one has authorised.

Returns {accounts: [{email, is_default, services, shared}]} where services names the Google services this account consented to (gmail, drive, sheets, calendar, tasks, chat). A service missing from the list has not been authorised on that account yet: connect it from its own connector card. shared is null for the user's own account, "group" or "org" for an account an admin shared with their team or the whole organization. Pass email as _account to the service tools — shared accounts included; omitted, the project's pinned account, else the default one.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "google_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
_accountNoCompte à OPÉRER quand plusieurs existent. `oto_identity(op='list')`.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description does meaningful work: it discloses the return shape, that `shared` is null for personal accounts and "group"/"org" for admin-shared ones, and the resolution order for `_account` (explicit email, then project-pinned account, then default). It never explicitly states that the call is read-only or whether it errors when no account is connected, which matters for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the return shape and then the field and fallback semantics, with no filler. The parenthetical service list is functional because it defines what `services` can contain.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the response shape and the meaning of every returned field. It remains silent on failure modes (no accounts connected, unauthorised service) and on ordering of the returned accounts, which is a modest gap for a discovery tool that agents will chain into service calls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: `_account` accepts the `email` returned here, shared accounts are valid values, and omitting it falls back to the project's pinned account and then the default. The remaining parameters (`_org`, `_group`, `_run_id`, `_project`, `_instance`) are left entirely to their schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a precise verb and resource: "List the connected Google accounts and the services each one has authorised." It then scopes the tool further by describing the exact return shape, which makes it unmistakably distinct from sibling identity tools such as oto_identity or the per-service connectors like gmail and sheets_create.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives real usage context: a missing service means it is not authorised yet and must be connected from its own connector card, and the `email` value should be passed as `_account` to the service tools. What is missing is an explicit "call this before using gmail/drive/sheets" instruction or a named alternative such as oto_identity, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tulina toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources