ogarniai_list_loyalty_accountsRetrieve connected external loyalty program accounts, such as store loyalty cards, to view their IDs, programs, masked logins, statuses, and creation dates.
List connected external loyalty program accounts (e.g. store loyalty cards).
Returns: JSON array of loyalty connections with id, program, maskedLogin, status, createdAt
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds the return field list ('id, program, maskedLogin, status, createdAt'), but it does not disclose possible behavior like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. Overall it adds some value without conflicting with annotations.
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 only two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the 'Returns' line compactly lists the output fields. Every sentence earns its place.
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 list tool, the description supplies both the domain and the returning field list, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. A full output schema is absent, but the listed fields are enough for the agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret simple results. Some nuance like possible status values is missing, but it is not critical here.
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 exposes zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to fill in. The baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.
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 starts with 'List connected external loyalty program accounts', which names a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical 'e.g. store loyalty cards' clarifies the exact domain. Among sibling list tools, it uniquely targets external loyalty accounts, so the agent can distinguish it without needing to inspect schemas.
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 explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. The intended use is implied by the action verb and resource ('list connected external loyalty accounts'), but there is no exclusion or stated condition that would help the agent choose this over other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.