list_accountsRetrieve all connected mailboxes available to this Fluxmail connection, including account ID, provider, email address, status, and capabilities.
List the connected mailboxes this connection can access. Each entry includes the account ID, provider, email address, status and 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?
Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation, and the description adds useful scope by saying it covers mailboxes this connection can access. It also summarizes returned fields, but that overlaps with the output schema and does not add deeper behavioral details such as ordering or pagination.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted wording. The purpose is front-loaded and the return summary follows 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete enough. It states what is listed and what each entry contains without needing to duplicate schema details.
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 parameter semantics are not a concern. The description does not need to explain inputs, and the baseline for no-parameter tools applies.
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 and resource: listing connected mailboxes accessible to this connection. It is clearly distinct from email/folder-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative such as list_send_as.
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 phrase 'this connection can access,' suggesting it is for discovering available mailbox accounts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.