wilma_accountLists connected Wilma logins and the children linked to each account, helping families with children on different Wilma services see all accounts in one view.
Which Wilma logins are connected and which children each one has. Families with children on different Wilmas can connect several (wilma_login adds another).
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: multiple concurrent logins are possible and each carries its own set of children. It omits what is returned when no accounts are connected.
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?
Two tight sentences with the payload front-loaded and the multi-account scenario plus the wilma_login pointer following. No filler.
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 params, full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does name the two things returned. It leaves the exact response shape and the empty-state behavior unspecified, a minor gap at this complexity.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter detail is missing because none exists.
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 names a specific resource and scope: connected Wilma logins plus the children under each login. A reader can tell this apart from the data-fetching siblings (gradebook, schedule, messages). It stops short of naming sibling tools it is not, so it is clear but not sharply differentiated.
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?
It supplies the operative context — families with children on different Wilmas can connect several accounts — and points at wilma_login as the tool that adds another, which implicitly frames when not to use this one. There is no explicit "use this when..." trigger or statement of prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.