orgs_listUsers get every organization they belong to; org API keys get the organization that issued them. Items are ordered by organization name ascending.
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": "orgs_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description earns credit beyond them by disclosing auth-dependent result scope (user key vs org API key) and a deterministic ascending-name ordering, which the annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating whether the result is truncated or paginated.
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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first gives scope conditional on credentials, the second gives ordering. Scope is front-loaded with zero filler or restated name.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does reasonably well: it says what set is returned per auth mode and how items are ordered. It omits the shape of an organization item and any size/truncation limits, which is a minor gap for a simple list.
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 no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% (empty object), leaving nothing for the description to compensate for.
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 and resource ('get every organization they belong to') and immediately qualifies the scope by authentication mode, which is the key ambiguity for a list tool with no filters. No sibling tool overlaps (no other orgs_* tool exists), so the agent can select it unambiguously.
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?
Usage is implied by the scope statement rather than stated: there is no when-to-use advice, no mention that this tool takes no filters, and no alternative named. With zero parameters and no filtering siblings, there is little to mis-route, but the description never explicitly frames call conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.