List all WebDiet accounts linked to this install.
Returns each account's id, email, label, and an "is_default" flag (true when only one is linked — no need to pass account in other tools). When the user wants to add another WebDiet account, return add_account_url (no payload) como link clicável — abre o form de login no dashboard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by detailing the return fields and their meanings (e.g., 'is_default' flag). No contradictions. The description gives useful behavioral context beyond 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?
The description is concise with two sentences and a note. No fluff, but could be better structured. The information is front-loaded. It earns its sentences.
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?
The description covers return values (id, email, label, is_default, add_account_url) but omits details like pagination or ordering. The 'account' parameter is undocumented. Given no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but has a notable gap.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the optional 'account' parameter at all. It only mentions 'account' in the context of other tools, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear. The description fails to compensate for schema gaps.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all WebDiet accounts linked to this install', and it includes what fields are returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like webdiet_patient_list or webdiet_food_search.
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 when to use this tool (to list accounts) and provides context about the 'is_default' flag for other tools. It also mentions using the returned 'add_account_url' for adding accounts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.
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.