list-accountsList all authenticated accounts configured for write operations to manage multiple identities on the Fediverse.
List all configured authenticated accounts for write operations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accounts | Yes | ||
| writeEnabled | Yes | ||
| activeAccountId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.4Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "accounts": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "instance": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "isActive": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "scopes": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "username": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "username",
+ "instance",
+ "isActive",
+ "scopes"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "activeAccountId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "writeEnabled": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "accounts",
+ "writeEnabled"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation indicates readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds context that the accounts listed are configured for write operations, providing extra behavioral insight beyond annotations.
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 a single sentence that conveys all necessary information without fluff, earning its place.
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 simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description completely covers the purpose and context. The presence of an output schema obviates the need to describe return values.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; it succinctly describes the output.
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 states the tool lists all configured authenticated accounts, specifying they are for write operations. The name and title are self-explanatory, and no sibling tool serves the same purpose.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, as a simple list tool with no parameters, the context of use is straightforward and implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.