List all teams (tenants) the current user belongs to. isActive marks the team this token currently operates against.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenants | No | Teams you are an active member of | |
| activeTenantId | No | The team this token currently operates on |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the result includes all user memberships and the isActive field indicates the token's current operating tenant. No contradictions with annotations.
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 one efficient sentence with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded and the field clarification (isActive) is added in a compact clause, earning its place.
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?
The tool is low-complexity (0 params), has an output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately explains what it lists and how to interpret the key field. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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?
With zero parameters, baseline is 4. There are no parameters to describe, and the schema has nothing to document, so this score is appropriate and the description need not compensate for anything.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource: all teams/tenants the current user belongs to. It also explains the isActive field, distinguishing it from get_active_tenant by noting all tenants are returned and the active one is marked.
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—when you need the full list of tenants for the current user—but does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_active_tenant or switch_active_tenant, nor does it state when to prefer this tool over those. The mention of isActive provides indirect context but not explicit routing.
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.
Most tools map to a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions actively disambiguate similar operations (e.g., get_form vs get_form_share_info vs get_form_stats). The main potential confusion is between list_records and list_leads and between get_record and get_lead, since both describe leads from slightly different angles.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun convention, with resources like form, question, lead, booking, examinee, translation, and tenant parallel across actions. The few non-CRUD verbs like prepare_/finalize_, duplicate_, and reschedule_ still fit the same uniform pattern.
48 tools is well beyond the 3–15 ideal and even past the 25+ threshold, making the tool surface heavy for an agent to navigate. The broad platform scope explains some of the size, but the count still risks overwhelming context and increasing misselection.
The server covers form lifecycle, question editing, translations, CRM leads, examinees, records, bookings, team/tenant operations, image uploads, templates, and analytics extremely well. Minor gaps remain—such as no lead/record deletion, no member removal or role updates, and limited booking-settings management—but most workflows can be completed with the existing tools.