Lists configured Google accounts and shows whether each has a token file on disk.
List configured accounts and whether each has a token file on disk.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "accounts_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait — that each entry includes whether a token file exists on disk — which tells the agent this reflects local credential state, not just remote account data. It does not state that the call is read-only or what the entry shape is, leaving a modest 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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return-value detail folded in afterward. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both what is listed and the notable per-item attribute returned. It stops slightly short of describing the identifying fields of an account (name, email, id), which is the only remaining ambiguity an agent might face.
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 schema declares zero parameters, so there are no semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter behavior.
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?
"List configured accounts" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the clause about token files on disk further pins down what is returned. No sibling in the catalog covers accounts, so no differentiation clause is needed; the purpose is unmistakable.
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: an agent can infer this is the way to enumerate accounts and check credential presence. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, but for a zero-argument list tool in a domain with no competing siblings, little guidance is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.