list_accountsList all configured mailboxes with their IDs, addresses, and permitted operations. Use the check_connection option to verify IMAP login for each account.
Lists configured mailboxes with their ids, addresses and what operations are permitted on each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_connection | No | Also test the IMAP login of every account (slower). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful contextual detail by specifying what the returned list contains, including permission information. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits noting that check_connection may perform IMAP login tests; the schema covers that.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource while providing the key output details in a compact structure.
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 low-complexity read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented optional parameter, the description is sufficient. It even explains the return contents in the absence of an output schema, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
Parameter schema coverage is 100%, and the optional check_connection boolean is fully described in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource as 'configured mailboxes', adding the exact output contents: IDs, addresses, and permitted operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_folders and makes the tool's intent unmistakable.
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 purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it, but the description provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as list_folders or search tools. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.