Lists all authorized Proton Pass shares, showing shared vaults and access permissions for the current pass-cli session.
Proton Passで許可された共有の一覧を確認する。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide – it only states the action. Since the safety profile is covered by annotations, a 3 is appropriate; the description is not misleading.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately brief for a simple list operation.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'share' or what fields are returned in the list. However, the tool name and context suggest a straightforward list operation, and annotations cover safety. Some additional context about the output format would improve completeness, but it is not critically deficient.
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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description is clear about what the tool does, and no parameters are required.
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?
Description clearly states the action (確認する = check/view) and the resource (許可された共有の一覧 = list of authorized shares). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_vaults and list_items, which cover different resources. The verb and object are specific and unambiguous.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool name and description make the purpose clear, there is no mention of conditions or scenarios that would lead an agent to choose this over list_vaults or list_items. For a tool with several siblings, this is a gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.