list_accountsRetrieves all configured Mail accounts, enabling AI assistants to identify available email accounts for management and interaction within Apple Mail.
List all available Mail accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / titleRemoved value: -"list_accountsArguments"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"list_accountsOutput"Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultAdded value: +truev3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states only that accounts are listed, without confirming read-only safety, auth requirements, or account scope beyond 'available'.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter listing tool.
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?
Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for invocation. It could still clarify its relationship to sibling account- and mailbox-listing tools.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.
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 clear verb and resource: 'List all available Mail accounts.' An agent can identify the operation. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling listing tools such as list_account_addresses or list_mailboxes.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not mention alternatives among the many sibling list tools. Usage is only implied by the name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.