list_accountsRetrieve connected social media accounts with IDs, platforms, and usernames. Filter by platform to see specific account details for managing posts and analytics.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (id, platform, username) but does not mention whether the list is paginated, whether it includes disconnected/expired accounts, whether it requires prior authentication, or what happens when no accounts exist. For a read-only listing tool this is a moderate gap.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and includes the key return fields. It earns its place, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming bloated.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, the lack of any behavioral context (pagination, authentication, empty results) and the absence of explicit sibling differentiation leave minor but real gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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%, so the schema already documents the platform parameter. The description adds the context that the result includes id, platform, and username, but does not explain the platform key values or the effect of omitting the filter. 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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('List accounts') and specifies the scope ('Connected social accounts') with the fields returned (id, platform, username). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_account (single account) and connect_account (creation), though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.
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 this is the tool for viewing connected accounts, and the optional platform filter suggests a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over get_account or list_account_tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.