list_workspacesList active Hacker Bob workspaces available to the authenticated account. The connection remains bound to its approved workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: only active workspaces are returned, availability is tied to the authenticated account, and the connection remains bound to its approved workspace. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the 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?
Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and a key behavioral note with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and every clause adds meaning.
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, zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers what is listed, whose workspaces are visible, the active-only filter, and an important connection-binding detail. The annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter behavior to document. The description is consistent with the empty schema and needs no additional parameter-level explanation.
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 and resource: 'List active Hacker Bob workspaces available to the authenticated account.' It clearly scopes the operation to the authenticated user's workspaces and distinguishes it from singular get_workspace and listing tools for other resources.
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 communicates the context: it lists active workspaces for the authenticated account. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter listing operation.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair: get/list/search for CVE records, begin/check for domain authorization, prepare/launch/cancel for assessment lifecycle, and get/list for assets, findings, and reports. There is no meaningful overlap that would confuse an agent selecting a tool.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as list_assessments, get_finding, launch_assessment, and search_public_cve_records. Naming conventions are uniform across the entire set, making tool behavior predictable.
With 22 tools, the server is on the heavier side and falls into the borderline range for tool count. The tools are individually justified by a broad domain, but the surface area is larger than a typical focused server needs.
The core assessment lifecycle is well covered: domain authorization can be created and checked, assessments can be prepared, launched, cancelled, and retrieved, and findings/reports/assets have read and list support. Minor gaps exist around explicit authorization removal or workspace switching, but these do not block the primary workflow.