Lists all configured Google accounts with their aliases and email addresses, letting you see which accounts are available for Classroom queries and submissions.
Cuentas de Google configuradas (alias y correo). Sin conexión a la API.
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral load. 'Sin conexión a la API' usefully discloses that this is a local/no-API operation, implying a safe, read-only listing. It does not go into return format or empty-result behavior, but for a simple account list this is adequate.
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 short fragments with no filler. The core identity of the tool is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about no API connection adds value without bloat.
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 local listing tool, this is nearly complete: it specifies the returned fields and the key behavior (no API call). It does not mention return format or the possibility of an empty list, but those are minor for this simple use case.
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, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter details needed, and the description correctly focuses on the output instead.
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 identifies the resource (configured Google accounts) and the expected output fields (alias and email). It lacks an explicit verb, but combined with the tool name 'list_accounts' the purpose is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the sibling course/assignment tools.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The resource is distinct enough from the siblings, but the description does not state any selection conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.