Retrieve configured email account IDs and their permissions without accessing credentials or mail. Use the IDs to choose the correct account for each mail action.
List configured account IDs and permissions. Does not access credentials or mail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful scope context beyond that: it discloses that credentials and mail are not touched, which tells the agent no secrets are exposed by the call.
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, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the scope caveat second. Nothing in the text is redundant with the schema or annotations.
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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with an output schema already describing the return shape, the description covers everything the agent needs: what is listed and what is deliberately not accessed.
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 schema-baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.
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 ('List configured account IDs and permissions'), so the agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not explicitly name or route away from the closest sibling (check_account), so it stops short of full sibling 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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the discovery step before calling account-specific tools like check_account, but no when-to-use or alternative is stated. The scope exclusion ('does not access credentials or mail') is the only guidance offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.