List the user's financial accounts. Use this to resolve an account name mentioned in an email (e.g., 'BCA ***1234') to an accountId before calling propose- tools. If no confident match, omit accountId on the proposal — the user will pick on review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nameLike | No | Optional case-insensitive substring filter on account name (e.g., 'bca', 'robinhood', 'visa'). Omit to list all accounts. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety. The description adds useful workflow behavior (resolving to accountId and handling no-match cases) but does not disclose output format, pagination, or potential response limits. It does not contradict annotations.
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 no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose; the second gives workflow context and a conditional fallback. Well structured and front-loaded.
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 list tool with a single filter parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key agent workflow. It implies that results contain accountId, but does not explicitly enumerate fields; still adequate for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents nameLike as a case-insensitive substring filter. The description reinforces its use (resolving account names) but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is appropriate.
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?
States a clear verb and resource (List financial accounts) and a specific intended use case (resolving account names to accountId). Differentiates from sibling read-only tools by the resource type and the explicit proposal workflow context.
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?
Gives concrete when-to-use guidance (before calling propose-* tools) and a decision rule for ambiguous matches (omit accountId if no confident match). Does not explicitly contrast with sibling read-only tools, but the workflow context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
