list_workspacesList workspaces available to the authenticated Tokenbooks user, or search by name or slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional workspace name or slug search query |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "planName": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "role": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "usage": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "portfolios": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "transactions": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "users": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "wallets": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "portfolios",
+ "transactions",
+ "users",
+ "wallets"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "planName",
+ "role",
+ "slug",
+ "usage"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the authenticated-user scope and the search-by-name-or-slug capability, which goes beyond the structured 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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the optional search behavior. Every word 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 read-only tool with one optional parameterSecret, the description covers purpose, scope, and search behavior. Annotations handle safety, and an output schema exists so return values do not need description. Nothing essential for invoking the tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'query' already has a description in the schema. The tool description reaffirms the parameter semantics by mentioning 'search by name or slug' but does not add material new meaning beyond the existing schema documentation.
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 resource ('workspaces available to the authenticated Tokenbooks user'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like list_wallets or list_portfolios. The optional search by name or slug is a concrete scope qualifier.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when listing or searching workspaces for the authenticated user. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to other list_* tools, leaving usage guidance to inference.
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.