Lists all saved QQ accounts in the local sandbox, showing which is the active default and which are currently online, so you can pick one to hot-swap without scanning a QR code.
查看本地沙箱中所有已保存登录凭证的 QQ 账号列表、当前默认激活账号以及当前正在线运行的账号信息。 列表中的账号均可直接通过 switch_qq_account 免扫码快速切换上线。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return content categories, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It also surfaces the behavioral trait that listed accounts support QR-free switching. It omits any explicit read-only/safety statement or freshness caveats, but the 'view/list' framing makes the read nature unambiguous.
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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the actionable next step. No filler or repetition; every clause carries a distinct fact (accounts, default account, online account, switch linkage).
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent must know: the absence of inputs is moot, and the missing output schema is compensated by an explicit enumeration of the returned account categories plus the switch workflow.
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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter description is needed or expected here.
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 ('view' a list of QQ accounts) and enumerates the three distinct data categories returned: saved-credential accounts, the default active account, and the currently online account. An agent can understand the scope without opening any schema, and switch_qq_account is named for differentiation.
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?
The second sentence gives a clear downstream workflow: accounts in this list can be brought online via switch_qq_account without a QR scan, which tells the agent when this tool is the right entry point. It stops short of explicit when-not-use conditions or prerequisites, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.