Local MCP

Notion List Workspaces

notion_list_workspaces

Read-only

Lists the Notion workspaces cached on this Mac. Start here for Notion — its output feeds notion_list_databases / notion_list_pages / notion_search. Does not return workspace members: the names and emails of third parties are not part of listing workspaces. Each entry's permissions carries only the permissions this service has (read, send, write; a key that is missing does not apply). true: allowed in the account's boxes (LMCP's icon → My apps → open the app's row → the account's Read · Send · Write) and the item accepts it. false: turned off there, or the item is read-only (read_only: true).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`count`	No
`workspaces`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / workspaces / items / properties / permissions

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "read": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "send": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "write": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / workspaces / items / properties / read_only

Added value: +{
+  "description": "true: the system reports this item as not modifiable. Absent when it cannot tell.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedAug 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / count
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / known_users

Removed value: -{
-  "items": {
-    "properties": {
-      "email": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "name": {
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / note
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

First observedJun 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results come from a local cache, third-party names/emails are deliberately excluded, and missing permission keys do not apply. The permission true/false decoding is useful but drifts into output-field explanation that the output schema partly owns.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose and routing are correctly front-loaded, but the final two sentences are heavily over-elaborated: the UI click-path ('LMCP's icon → My apps → open the app's row …') reads like help documentation and consumes disproportionate space for a zero-parameter tool. The core message would survive a 40% trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, and the description still covers cache locality, the member-exclusion privacy boundary, and permission semantics. Only the cluttered permission explanation keeps it from being airtight.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is nothing to disambiguate. The description spends its words on return-payload semantics rather than parameters, which is appropriate here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus a critical qualifier — workspaces 'cached on this Mac', not remote ones. It also positions itself against siblings by declaring itself the entry point whose output feeds notion_list_databases, notion_list_pages and notion_search, so an agent can distinguish it from those without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Start here for Notion' and names the three downstream tools this output feeds, which is exactly the sequencing guidance an agent needs. It also carves out a scope boundary ('Does not return workspace members'), telling the agent not to call it expecting member data.

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

All Local MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.