list_accountsList Buffer accounts with local names, default account marker, and authentication status, without exposing tokens or organization IDs.
Local names, default marker and whether authentication is configured. No token, token path or organization ID.
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description does add real value by disclosing what is deliberately omitted from the payload ('No token, token path or organization ID'), which is security-relevant context annotations cannot express. It stops short of any pagination, ordering or volume behavior, so it lands at adequate rather than strong.
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?
It is very short and front-loads the returned fields ahead of the exclusions, which is the right ordering. However, the two fragments are telegraphic – no subject or verb – so the first sentence reads as a bare noun list rather than a self-contained statement, costing it structure points.
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?
With no output schema and no input parameters, the description is the sole source of shape information for this read tool, and it only partially discharges that duty: it names three returned attributes and three excluded ones but says nothing about how many accounts come back, ordering, or whether the list is scoped to the caller. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 100% schema coverage baseline applies trivially. No misleading param claims are made.
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 enumerates the profile attributes surfaced ('Local names, default marker and whether authentication is configured') but never states the action or resource in verb+object form – the agent infers 'list accounts' from the name and title rather than the description. It does distinguish itself from get_account only weakly, via the field-list framing, not by naming the sibling or the singular-vs-plural intent.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The sibling get_account sits right next to it and the description offers no guidance on choosing the collection form over the single-account form. Usage is only implied by the plural tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.