Lists connected McDonald's China account aliases and their local spending limits without exposing credentials, so agents can verify available accounts and policies.
List connected aliases and local spending limits without exposing credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely carried by structured data. The description still adds meaningful context beyond them: the output is credential-masked, which tells the agent this is safe to surface in a conversation. It stops short of describing what an "alias" is or whether the list is local-only.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; each clause (what is listed and what is protected) carries distinct information.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the key privacy guarantee. What is missing is modest: the relationship between aliases and the account_* siblings, so the agent knows whether this supersedes account_check.
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 per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing parameter-level for the description to compensate for, and the schema coverage is 100%.
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 uses a clear verb ("List") and names the concrete resources returned: connected aliases and local spending limits. It is specific enough to be actionable, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as account_check or account_refresh, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for enumerating accounts, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to account_check for status details. The routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.