Lists registered email accounts from connected mail services without exposing passwords, enabling quick account overview for unified inbox management.
등록된 메일 계정 목록을 반환합니다. (비밀번호 미포함)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that passwords are not included, but says nothing else about side effects, permissions, or limits. For a zero-parameter read-only list operation, this is acceptable but minimal.
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 a single efficiently worded sentence with a useful parenthetical qualifier. Every word earns its place and the main action is front-loaded.
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 simple zero-parameter list tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations it could say a bit more about what an account entry looks like or how this differs from list_mailboxes. Still, the core purpose is clear.
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?
There are no parameters, so the input schema is effectively complete. The description adds a small but relevant semantic detail that the returned accounts are registered, which is the baseline-4 case for zero-parameter tools.
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?
Description clearly states that the tool returns the list of registered mail accounts, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list_mailboxes, so an agent cannot immediately tell which list tool to use.
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 that one should use this tool when a list of registered accounts is needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. No alternatives or relationships to sibling tools like list_mailboxes are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.