list_connectionsRetrieve owned connection IDs, providers, expiry, and revocation metadata using an API key; sensitive plaintext and ciphertext are never returned.
Requires API key. Returns owned connection IDs, providers, expiry and revocation metadata. Never returns plaintext or ciphertext.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the API-key auth requirement and, importantly, the data-handling guarantee that plaintext and ciphertext are never returned. It does not state ordering or whether the result is complete versus paginated, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Three tight sentences with no filler. The auth prerequisite leads ahead of the purpose statement, which is a slightly odd ordering for an agent scanning for what the tool does, but everything present earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does: IDs, providers, expiry and revocation metadata, plus an explicit negative guarantee. Complete enough to call correctly; only result ordering and completeness (full list vs. paged) are unstated.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste words on a parameter list.
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 specific verb (list) and resource (connections) and even names the fields returned: owned connection IDs, providers, expiry and revocation metadata. It is distinguishable from revoke_connection and replace_launch_connection by verb alone, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the connection_instructions or revoke_connection alternatives. Usage is only implied by the verb 'list' and the word 'owned', which is minimum-viable but leaves the agent to infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.