list_accountsLists private account labels, the default account selection, and the configured token method without exposing credentials, token paths, or community content.
List private account labels, default selection and configured token method. No credentials, token paths or community content; no network request.
| 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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: it excludes credentials and token paths and makes no network request, which reassures the agent about privacy and side effects. It stops short of describing ordering or the exact response shape.
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 compact sentence that front-loads what is returned and follows with the exclusion list. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming the three categories returned plus what is excluded. It could mention ordering or structure, but it is otherwise sufficient for a parameterless read tool.
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; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema, and it does not need to.
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 enumerates the concrete resource fields it returns: account labels, default selection, and configured token method. This is far more specific than a tautology, though there is no close sibling in the provided list to explicitly differentiate against.
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 implies this is a read-only config introspection tool and scopes what it does not cover (credentials, token paths, community content), but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.