line-oa-mcp-ultimate

List LINE OAs configured

line_list_oas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover all LINE Official Accounts available in your MCP configuration. Get active OA and list of OA IDs with details before selecting one to operate.

Instructions

List all LINE Official Accounts available to this MCP instance (from the multi-OA config file, or single-OA env mode). Call before line_use_oa to discover OA IDs.

Returns { active_oa, oas:[{ id, display_name?, region?, is_premium?, is_active }] }.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "line_list_oas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`response_format`	No		markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2May 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, confirming no destructive side effects. The description adds context about the data source (config file or env mode) and the return structure (active_oa, oas array with fields), going beyond annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a line showing return format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage hint, with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description includes a return structure, which is helpful. It also explains the data source. For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, it is reasonably complete, though it could mention that response_format controls output style.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, response_format, is self-explanatory from the schema (enum with default). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining its effect, but it does not mention the parameter at all. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which is sufficient but not enhanced.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists all LINE Official Accounts available to the MCP instance, specifying the context (multi-OA or single-OA mode). It distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating it should be called before line_use_oa to discover OA IDs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises to call this tool before line_use_oa to discover OA IDs, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, preventing a higher score.

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

Deploy Server