list_accountsRetrieve connected social media accounts with IDs, platforms, and usernames, optionally filtered by platform key, to select the right account for posting or analysis.
Connected social accounts (id, platform, username).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | No | Filter by platform key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful detail about the returned fields, but does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, or whether all accounts are returned by default.
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, front-loaded fragment with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it lacks a clear verb and structure beyond listing fields.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description mentions the returned fields but omits pagination behavior and any scope information. It is minimally adequate but does not help the agent route among many account-related siblings.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the single optional 'platform' parameter is documented as 'Filter by platform key' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already covers it.
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 identifies the resource as connected social accounts and lists the returned fields (id, platform, username). This is clear enough to understand the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from related siblings like get_account or list_account_tools.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account for a single account or list_account_tools for account-specific tools. Usage is only implicitly suggested by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.