sa360.customers.list_accessibleRetrieve SA360 customer accounts available to the authenticated user so you can identify which accounts are accessible for reporting or management.
List SA360 customers (accounts) the authenticated user can access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that results are auth-scoped to what the user can access, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or permissions required to broaden the set.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the resource plus scope constraint are front-loaded. Nothing in it is redundant with the title or restates the schema.
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 zero-parameter read-only discovery call with an output schema available, the description covers what an agent needs. A note on how to use the returned customer IDs in downstream SA360 report calls would make it fully complete.
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 there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical '(accounts)' is the only semantic addition and it aligns with the resource, not a parameter.
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 SA360 customers') and disambiguates customers as accounts, which is useful terminology for the SA360 API. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling listing tools like adh.customers.list, but the product namespace makes the scope 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?
The phrase 'the authenticated user can access' implies this is a discovery/enumeration call, but the description never says when to use it versus alternatives or that its results are typically prerequisites for sa360.report.* and sa360.search calls. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.