List saved credentials as domain and username pairs without exposing passwords. Use fill_credential to autofill a login form when needed.
List saved credentials. Returns domain and username pairs only -- passwords are never included in the response. Use fill_credential to autofill a login form.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does useful work: it discloses that passwords are never returned, which is the key behavioral/security expectation for this tool. It stops short of noting auth requirements or whether any filtering/pagination applies.
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?
Three short sentences with zero waste; the capability and the return-content caveat are front-loaded before the cross-reference to fill_credential.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (domain/username pairs, no passwords). For a zero-parameter read tool in a large browser-automation toolset, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the meaningful detail that output is limited to domain/username pairs, though there are no parameters whose semantics need explaining.
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 (saved credentials) and immediately bounds the result set to domain/username pairs. It is clearly distinguishable from fill_credential, which it names as the action sibling.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to fill_credential when the goal is autofilling a login form, which is a clear when-to-use-other signal. It does not, however, state the reverse condition or any prerequisites for calling list_credentials itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.