list_orgsList the organizations the signed-in user belongs to (personal org first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are restricted to orgs the signed-in user belongs to, and ordering places the personal org first. These are behavioral traits not encoded in the annotations. No contradiction with openWorldHint=false — the membership scope actually reinforces the closed-world stance.
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?
One sentence, 13 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the ordering detail tucked cleanly into a parenthetical. Every word carries information; there is zero waste or repetition of the title beyond the necessary verb.
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 0-param read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, scope, and ordering completely. An agent knows exactly what will happen and what it will get. The only conceivable addition — routing to get_org for single-org details — is a nice-to-have, not a gap at this complexity level.
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 has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline 4; the description correctly devotes no space to parameters.
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 ('List'), resource ('organizations'), and scope ('the signed-in user belongs to') in one sentence. The parenthetical 'personal org first' adds ordering detail that further pins down behavior. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_org, create_org, and delete_org without needing to open the schema.
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 scope clause 'the signed-in user belongs to' provides clear context for when to invoke this tool — when the agent needs the current user's org membership list, not a specific org (get_org) and not a mutation (create_org/delete_org). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for a 0-param list tool.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource/action: board retrieval is split into JSON vs image with explicit cross-references, and drawing tools are separated from the generic update_board. Look-alikes like list_documents vs list_diagrams and publish_listing vs use_template are differentiated clearly.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern: create_project, list_documents, update_board, upsert_org_member. A few noun-only names like my_listings, project_file_counts and template_categories break the pattern, so naming is consistent but not uniform.
40 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a single server, even though the domains are clustered into org/project/document/board/template areas. The large surface will make tool selection and onboarding heavier for an agent than necessary.
Core lifecycle coverage for org/project/document/board/template is mostly present, and update_board serves as a flexible escape hatch. However, the board API reads rectangle/diamond/ellipse/free-text drawings and groups/links but only offers explicit create/erase for strokes and arrows; paid template purchase/access is also left unclear.