list_accountsLists local Bannerbear workspace profiles with labels, default flag, and auth method, excluding keys, paths, and provider identity; performs no network calls.
Local profile labels, default and auth method only; no keys, paths or provider identity. No network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it is local-only ('No network') and it discloses data minimization ('no keys, paths or provider identity'), telling the agent what sensitive fields are deliberately excluded.
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 dense clause-pack with no filler; the exclusions and the local-only constraint are front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment rather than a well-formed sentence, which slightly hurts readability but not efficiency.
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-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (labels, default, auth method), what is not returned, and the local-only nature — enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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 the baseline is 4. The description sensibly spends its words on the return payload rather than phantom parameters.
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 (local profiles) and precisely scopes the payload — 'labels, default and auth method only'. It never uses an explicit verb like 'list', and it does not differentiate from the sibling get_account, so it is clear but not sibling-aware.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over get_account or any list_* sibling. The only usage-adjacent signal is 'No network', which describes behavior rather than selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.