List all configured IMAP email accounts. Shows default and named accounts (work, personal, etc.).
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": "list_email_accounts"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, and 'configured' scopes the behavior, but no explicit safety guarantees or caveats (e.g., whether accounts are sorted, whether it includes disabled accounts) are disclosed.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a secondary detail. No unnecessary words, ideal for an agent scanning for tool relevance.
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 is adequate for a zero-param list operation, but the presence of nearly identical siblings like 'list_email_accounts_managed' means the description could be more explicit about what is included (e.g., all accounts vs managed) and what the return shape looks like, since there is no output schema.
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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is exhaustive. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific info because none is needed.
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 resource ('configured IMAP email accounts'), making the primary purpose explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_email_accounts_managed', although the qualifier 'configured' provides a subtle distinction.
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?
No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'list_email_accounts_managed' or 'list_mailboxes'. The description simply states what it does without placement in the broader toolset.
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.