List the portfolios you authorized this connector to access.
Returns the portfolios that were on your TipRanks account at the time you signed in, each with its id and name. If you've added or renamed portfolios since, re-authorize to refresh.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "list_my_portfoliosOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the list reflects portfolios present at sign-in time ('at the time you signed in'), and that re-authorization is needed to refresh. This goes beyond annotation hints and helps the agent understand potential staleness.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds essential information: the action and the caveat about data freshness. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it states what is returned (id and name), the source (authorized portfolios), and a critical caveat about refresh. This fully covers what an agent needs to know.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema provides complete coverage for parameters. The description isn't required to explain parameter syntax, but it does not add explicit 'no arguments needed' clarity. The baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here.
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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List the portfolios you authorized this connector to access.' It further specifies the output scope (id and name) and differentiates this listing tool from sibling portfolio tools like get_portfolio_holdings or get_portfolio_analysis, which operate on specific portfolios.
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 description provides clear context on when to use the tool: to see authorized portfolios and retrieve their IDs/names. It also includes a usage caveat about re-authorizing if portfolios have changed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the listing-purpose is unambiguous.
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.