ably_list_namespacesList the channel namespaces (channel-rule prefixes) configured for an app, e.g. persistence and push settings. Control API: GET /apps/{app_id}/namespaces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | App id (from ably_list_apps). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by showing the GET endpoint. It adds useful context about what namespaces are and that the call is scoped to an app, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination, or any other behavioral traits beyond the read-only GET nature.
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 sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and wastes no words. It packs the essential definition, an example, and the REST endpoint into a compact form.
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 single-parameter list operation, the description plus the input schema is sufficient for an agent to make the call correctly. There is no output schema; the description could have noted the return type more explicitly, but 'List ... namespaces' strongly implies the response, so this is not a critical gap.
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 coverage is 100%, with the single app_id parameter already documented, including its provenance from ably_list_apps. The description's endpoint template '/apps/{app_id}/namespaces' reinforces the parameter's role but adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the operation: list channel namespaces configured for an app, adding a clarifying parenthetical and concrete examples. It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools such as ably_list_rules or ably_list_channels, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Control API' hints at the administrative context, but there are no explicit usage conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.
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 and action: account-level stats, app-level stats, channel details, history, presence, presence history, service time, and each control-plane listing (apps, keys, namespaces, queues, rules) are clearly separated. The only potentially confusing pair is account stats vs app stats, but their descriptions explicitly differentiate account-wide vs API-key-scoped usage.
All tools use a uniform 'ably_' prefix followed by a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for single resources, list_ for collections, publish_message for the write action, and whoami for token details. There are no mixed casing styles or inconsistent verb choices.
Fifteen tools is within the ideal range and each one covers a meaningful Ably capability, from control-plane inspection to channel data retrieval and publishing. The count feels justified given the breadth of Ably's API surface, with no redundant or filler tools.
The read side is well covered: stats, channel details, history, presence, and control-plane listings all have dedicated tools, and message publishing provides one write path. However, there are no create/update/delete operations for apps, keys, namespaces, queues, or rules, so lifecycle management is largely absent and an agent could not perform common administrative workflows.