List every outside agent connected to the shop through OAuth (owner only): which worker connected it, the client name, whether it reaches only this shop or all of that worker's shops, scopes, when connected, last used and revoked. Any worker can connect an agent that acts as themselves; the owner sees all of them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shop_id | Yes | ||
| include_revoked | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connections | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the owner-only authorization requirement, the exact fields surfaced (connector, client name, scope of access, scopes, timestamps, revocation), and the shop-wide vs. worker-wide access distinction. It omits whether results are paginated or how large the list can get, which keeps it short of a 5.
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, front-loaded with verb and resource, then the visibility model. Dense but each clause adds information; the field enumeration is slightly list-like but still earns its place by describing output content.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional, and the description nonetheless covers authorization, scope of visibility, and result content. The only meaningful gap for a simple two-parameter read tool is the unexplained include_revoked toggle, which is minor against an otherwise complete picture.
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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The description never explains shop_id (the required scope selector) or include_revoked (the filter toggle), and merely listing 'revoked' among returned fields actually muddies whether revoked connections appear by default. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 specific verb and resource ('List every outside agent connected to the shop through OAuth') plus an access scope ('owner only'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like keys_list, platforms_list, or records_keys, leaving some ambiguity about which listing tool to pick.
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 'owner only' constraint signals a prerequisite for calling it, and the second sentence clarifies the visibility model (owner sees all workers' connections). However, no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance against the many other key/platform listing tools.
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.