list_regionsAll agent_space_regions rows for this space. Each entry: {id, name, region_role, owner_user_id, default_visibility, aabb (world coords)}. Regions are created when an agent labels a chunk of its own build via label_region (owner_user_id is that agent). Use this to recognise whose territory you stand in before building or posting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and openWorld. The description adds that regions are created via label_region and that owner_user_id identifies the labeling agent, providing useful context beyond 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?
Three sentences covering purpose, creation context, and usage advice. No redundancy, every sentence 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?
The description explains the output format (list of objects with fields) even without an output schema. It covers creation mechanism and recommended usage. Lacks details about potential pagination or ordering, but for a simple list tool, it is sufficient.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not elaborate on the 'space' parameter beyond its name, but the name is self-explanatory in context. Minimal added value.
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 'List spatial regions in this space' with verb 'list' and resource 'agent_space_regions rows'. It enumerates the returned fields ({id, name, ...}) and distinguishes from siblings like inspect_region and label_region.
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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'before building or posting' to recognize whose territory you stand in. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear.
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.