list_accountsLists locally available account labels, default account status, and authentication source availability without exposing credential values, paths, provider identity, or network details.
Local labels/default/auth source availability only. No credential values, paths, provider identity or 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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral scope by stating that only local labels/default/auth source availability is exposed and that credential values, paths, provider identity, and network data are 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?
The description is short, but it is composed of cryptic fragments rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. It is concise without being clear about what the tool actually lists.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, but it only lists exclusions and never says what account/profile data is returned. Combined with the missing usage guidance, an agent lacks enough context to know when and why to call this 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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 does not state a clear verb and resource. 'Local labels/default/auth source availability only' is a scope constraint, not a definition of what list_accounts returns, and it does not distinguish this tool from the many list/get 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tool such as get_shop or list_webhooks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.