Lists configured mail accounts and their authentication status. Start here when another email operation reports an authentication problem to identify the affected account.
List configured mail accounts and whether each is authenticated.
Call this first if another tool reports an authentication problem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool reports authentication state and is intended as an initial diagnostic step, but it does not go further into behavioral details. No contradiction exists.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides actionable guidance, placing the most important information upfront.
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 zero parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what information it returns, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing.
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 description does not need to document input semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description introduces no conflicting or missing input information.
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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('configured mail accounts'), and states the key attribute returned ('whether each is authenticated'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on folders, messages, or attachments.
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?
The description gives explicit guidance: call this tool first if another tool reports an authentication problem. It does not state exclusions or alternative tools, but the diagnostic use case is clearly framed and sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.