List the signed-in person's workspaces. Tags, folders and transcriptions all live inside one, so this is the outermost level of their library. Read-only. Requires an OAuth 2.1 user access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds the authentication requirement and the hierarchical relationship of tags/folders/transcriptions. It adds value beyond the annotations by clarifying the data model and access prerequisites, with no contradiction.
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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional context about hierarchy and authentication is efficiently stated. Every sentence earns 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?
For a simple list operation with zero parameters and an existing annotation profile, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, that it is read-only, and authentication requirements. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but for a tool with no parameters and no output schema, this is not a critical gap. It is adequately complete.
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?
This tool takes zero parameters, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description does not need to add further parameter semantics; its mention of 'the signed-in person's workspaces' implicitly defines the scope based on authentication. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'workspaces' for the signed-in person. It also differentiates the tool by noting it is the outermost level of the library, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_folders and list_transcriptions.
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 provides context on when to use this tool: it is the top-level container for tags, folders, and transcriptions. It also mentions the authentication requirement (OAuth 2.1 user access token). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the hierarchy explanation implies that nested resources would use other list tools.
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.
The set contains several near-neighbor groups: deprecated aliases duplicate live tools, and docs/billing/financial tools have fuzzy boundaries. Individual descriptions are detailed and resolve most collisions, but matching the right tool among 39 still requires care.
Most tools follow a sensible verb_object style, but the transcribe_* group is inconsistent: transcribe_url/transcribe_upload are verb_object, while transcribe_status/transcribe_cancel/transcribe_delete are really status/cancel/delete operations renamed with a transcribe prefix. The deprecated transcription_status/transcription_url aliases add another naming convention, so the pattern is not reliable across the set.
39 tools is well over the 25+ threshold and creates an overwhelmingly broad surface spanning account management, billing, docs, API jobs, library organization, meeting bots, and automations. Two deprecated duplicates inflate the count further. This would be more coherent split into separate servers or at least pruned of deprecated aliases.
Core API transcription lifecycle is covered, and the library/meeting-bot flows have search, tagging, moving, and audio retrieval. However, there is no user-library deletion/rename, no OAuth-side full-transcript access, local upload is non-functional over the hosted endpoint, and webhook management is documented but not exposed as tools. These gaps force agents to work around missing operations.
