list_unified_environmentsList environments from the connected account. Returns an array of environment records. Use to browse or search many environments; to add a new environment, use create_unified_environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "Environment": {
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/Environment"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "array",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds account scoping ('from the connected account'), which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or auth needs.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with the core purpose first and the sibling routing last. 'Returns an array of environment records' is largely redundant given the output schema exists, costing a little efficiency.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, scope and sibling routing adequately. The only gap is the unsupported 'search' implication, which could mislead an agent into expecting filtering.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List environments from the connected account') and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling `create_unified_environment`. An agent can identify the operation and its scope without opening the schema.
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?
Gives clear when-to-use ('browse or search many environments') and names the create alternative for the opposite case. The 'search' wording is slightly misleading since the tool accepts zero parameters and offers no filtering, but the routing guidance is otherwise explicit.
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.