list_accountsRetrieve all Starling Bank accounts accessible with the current token, including account UIDs, types, currencies, names, and default category IDs needed for feeds and payments.
Lists the accounts this token can access, with accountUid, accountType, currency, name and defaultCategory (the category UID of the main balance, needed by feed and payment endpoints).
| 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=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations do not carry: results are permission-scoped to the token, and defaultCategory is a dependency consumed by feed and payment endpoints. It omits pagination and any error/permission-failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.
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: verb, scope, and payload fields in order of importance. Every clause earns its place, including the dependency note on defaultCategory.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and flagging the cross-endpoint dependency. It stops short of covering pagination/volume or what happens when the token has no accounts, which would round it out for a zero-parameter listing 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description does not need to explain inputs; instead it usefully documents the shape of the returned objects, which is value beyond the empty schema.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('accounts') plus the scope constraint ('this token can access') and enumerates the returned fields (accountUid, accountType, currency, name, defaultCategory). No sibling tool lists accounts, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from the get_* siblings without opening a schema.
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: the parenthetical notes defaultCategory is 'needed by feed and payment endpoints', which hints at a prerequisite role. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no clarification of how this differs from get_account_balance or get_account_identifiers, and no guidance on when to prefer one account-access tool over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.