list_clientsLists the account's brands (one per client) with, for each: the social accounts connected to it, its active client links (url, expiry, how many times opened and when last), and how many of its posts wait for approval. Also says whether the plan includes client links and how many brands have no social account connected yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the response contents, including client-link metadata, post-approval counts, plan-level client-link availability, and brands lacking social accounts. It does not mention pagination or size limits.
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 and front-loads the main action and resource. The dense enumeration of returned fields is justified because there is no output schema, and no sentence is wasted.
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 read-only, zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the main returned fields and plan-level information. It omits details such as ordering or pagination, and does not clarify its relationship to list_brands, but the core behavior is covered.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter behavior to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on what the returned listing contains.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and clearly identifies the resource: the account's brands, one per client, along with connected social accounts, client links, and waiting posts. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as list_brands.
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 explains what data is returned but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_brands or client_report. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria for the agent.
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.