List all connected social media accounts from your XenonFlare integration to review linked platforms.
List connected social accounts.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_channels"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it returns a list of IDs, names, or other properties, or if there are any side effects. For a tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.
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 extremely concise at three words. It is front-loaded and to the point. However, the brevity sacrifices some completeness, but for a zero-parameter tool, it is acceptable. Every word 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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of channel IDs, names, or URLs), nor how the results relate to sibling tools like upload_image. This lack of completeness limits the agent's ability to effectively use the tool.
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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (0 params). The description does not add parameter-level details, but since there are none to describe, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 'List connected social accounts' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (connected social accounts). It is a specific verb+resource, but it lacks detail on what constitutes a 'channel' or which social platforms are included. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the sibling tools are about images/videos, so the purpose is relatively clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Since there are no parameters and no sibling tools with similar purposes, the lack of usage guidelines is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.