accounts_connectInitiate linking for GitHub, Vercel, or Cloudflare accounts. Get an authorization link and request ID, or confirmation if already connected.
Start linking github|vercel|cloudflare. Returns open-link + request_id (or already:true).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false and offer no safety hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior and return fields (open-link, request_id, already:true), but it does not explain side effects such as whether a pending connection/request is created, whether repeated calls are safe, or how the returned link is used.
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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the action, then lists return values in parentheses. No words are wasted, and the special already:true case is included 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete: it names the provider values and the expected result shape. It could mention that the open-link requires user action or that request_id is used in a later completion step, but those are optional for correct invocation.
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 schema merely defines provider as a string with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by listing the acceptable providers (github, vercel, cloudflare), giving an agent concrete input guidance that the schema alone lacks.
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 uses a specific verb ('Start linking') and names the exact resources (github, vercel, cloudflare), clearly identifying this as the initial step in connecting an external account. This differentiates it from sibling tools like accounts_remove or accounts_complete, whose roles are distinct.
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 description implies usage as the entry point to an account-linking flow ('Start linking') and signals a no-op when already connected ('or already:true'), but it never explicitly says when to use this instead of accounts_wait or accounts_complete, nor does it describe prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.