list_accountsList configured email accounts to identify which ones support sending and mailbox changes for selection or confirmation. Credentials remain private.
Use this when selecting one configured mail account or confirming which accounts support sending and mailbox changes. Credentials are never returned.
| 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: credentials are never returned. This is useful context beyond the 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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary use case is front-loaded, and the credential privacy note is a valuable, compact addition.
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 list tool, the description covers when to use it and the key behavioral constraint. It does not enumerate return fields, but the lack of an output schema and the simple nature of the operation make this acceptable.
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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description's mention of account selection and capabilities helps clarify the tool's purpose without needing parameter details.
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 clearly states the tool lists configured mail accounts and is used for selecting an account or checking account capabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_mailboxes by focusing on accounts rather than mailboxes or messages.
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 description explicitly says when to use the tool: when selecting a configured mail account or confirming which accounts support sending and mailbox changes. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases are specific enough to guide an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.