Lists connected O2, Drive, OneDrive, and Google Photos accounts and their capabilities without exposing credentials, helping agents pick where to browse or transfer files.
Lista las cuentas conectadas y sus capacidades; no muestra credenciales.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — credentials are not returned — but says nothing about pagination, account status, or what 'capacidades' includes.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the credential caveat appended efficiently. No waste.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the zero-param signature is fully specified. The only shortfall is that no usage context or sibling routing is provided.
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 no parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already communicates.
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 and resource ('Lista las cuentas conectadas y sus capacidades'), which is clearly distinct from file-oriented siblings like cloud_list and cloud_stat. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative or scope boundary against cloud_accounts-adjacent 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no reference to any sibling tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the account-enumeration entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.