list_accountsFetch private account labels, default selection, and token method configuration to identify active profiles without exposing credentials or making network requests.
List private account labels, default selection and configured token method. No credentials, token paths or account 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it confirms no credentials, token paths, or account content are returned, and that no network request is made.
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 tightly written sentences front-load the core scope and then immediately clarify the negative behavior. Every phrase contributes useful information 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned concepts and explicitly rules out sensitive data and network activity. It stops short of describing result ordering, formatting, or pagination, but those may not apply or may be self-evident.
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 are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool has a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.
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 gives a specific verb and resource (list accounts) and enumerates the exact scope: private account labels, default selection, and configured token method. Its exclusions also implicitly distinguish it from broader siblings like get_account or get_current_token, which would expose account content or credentials.
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 usage by stating exactly what metadata the tool surfaces, but it never explicitly says when to call this instead of alternatives such as get_account or get_current_token. The 'No credentials...' clause scopes the tool, yet no named alternative or when-not condition is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.