List agent MCP servers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: sensitive fields like `secret_id` and `mcp_server_url` are scrubbed from the response, which tells the agent what data it will and will not receive.

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?

Two compact sentences with the main action front-loaded. The trailing 'Read operation.' marginally restates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than adding information, but the definition is otherwise tight and well structured.

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 read-only, two-parameter listing tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential return-value caveat (scrubbed sensitive fields). Nothing critical is missing, though it doesn't note whether the list is paginated or empty-case behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `account` and `agent_id` (including the reserved aliases) are already documented in the schema. The description only implies the agent scoping and adds no format or alias detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a precisely scoped resource ('the MCP servers (connectors) attached to an agent'), which cleanly separates it from list_mcp_servers, attach_agent_mcp_server, and detach_agent_mcp_server. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 'attached to an agent' scope implies when to use this versus the general server-list tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite guidance, and no named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.