List all livechat widgets.
Returns widgets with their configuration, embed code, and status.
Use this when user wants to see their widgets or chat widgets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active_only | No | Only return active widgets. OMIT to include inactive widgets too. | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return content ('configuration, embed code, and status'), which is useful because there is no output schema, but it discloses no further behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or default inactive inclusion (the schema handles active_only).
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 uses three short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then return content, then usage context. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description usefully summarizes return fields, and the annotations plus schema cover safety and parameters. It is mostly complete for a simple list tool, though it omits any mention of pagination, sorting, or explicit sibling routing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both optional parameters fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or syntax beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all livechat widgets.' It is clearly a list operation, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as widgets_get or widgets_get_embed_code, leaving sibling selection to inference.
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?
It gives explicit usage context: 'Use this when user wants to see their widgets or chat widgets.' However, it offers no when-not guidance or direct alternatives, so an agent must infer when to prefer a different widget 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.