Retrieve all connected email accounts with provider, address, status, and capabilities to manage Gmail, Outlook, or IMAP/SMTP access.
List connected email accounts (id, provider, email, status, capabilities).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.11.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "email": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "provider": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "provider",
+ "email",
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main duty is additional context, which it only partly delivers. It does not mention whether unauthenticated or disconnected accounts appear, what 'status' values mean, or any scoping/rate constraints.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the returned fields in a compact parenthetical. No filler or redundancy.
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 list tool with an output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essentials; the field list even previews the return shape. Minor gaps (status semantics, account scope) remain but are not blocking.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument enumeration and introduces no phantom parameters.
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 (List) and resource (connected email accounts), and the parenthetical names the fields returned. It is clearly a different resource from siblings like list_labels or list_send_as, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.
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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as list_send_as, which is the closest sibling and also enumerates account-level configuration. No prerequisites (e.g., authentication/connection state) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.