Retrieve all connected Gmail accounts with their alias and read-only status. Use it to check which accounts are linked and their access level.
List all connected Gmail accounts with their alias and read-only status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and discloses that alias and read-only status are returned, but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is non-destructive, mention authentication requirements, or clarify pagination or ordering behavior.
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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the essential information efficiently.
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's low complexity, zero parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It succinctly describes what is listed and highlights the key returned fields without redundant detail.
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 and schema coverage is effectively 100% for the empty object. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, so a 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('connected Gmail accounts') and adds the returned fields (alias, read-only status). It clearly distinguishes this account-listing tool from the email and label operation siblings without needing a sibling reference.
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 implied by the description: call this tool when you need to enumerate connected Gmail accounts. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.