google_account_addInitiate OAuth login to add a new Google account, opening a browser for sign-in and allowing a custom nickname for easy identification.
Start the OAuth consent flow to connect a new Google account. Opens a browser for sign-in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nickname for the account (e.g. personal, work). | |
| openBrowser | No | Open a browser automatically (default true). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that this starts an interactive OAuth consent flow and opens a browser for sign-in, which are the key side effects. It could additionally mention that the flow requires user interaction or that a token is stored after successful sign-in, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 with no filler. The main action ('Start the OAuth consent flow') is front-loaded, and the browser behavior is stated immediately after.
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 simple two-parameter interactive tool, the description covers the initiation, the mechanism, and the user-visible behavior. It does not describe the post-sign-in result or the fact that the flow is blocking/interactive, but these are not critical given the overall simplicity and fully described schema.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, though 'new Google account' reinforces that the name parameter is a nickname for a newly linked account. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource ('add'/'connect a new Google account') and clearly names the OAuth consent flow as the mechanism. It is easy to distinguish from sibling account-management tools like google_account_remove, google_account_set_default, google_account_list, and google_account_status.
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 implies when to use it: when a new Google account needs to be connected. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as google_account_list for checking connected accounts or google_account_remove for removing an existing one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.