List workspaces accessible under the current personal account.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "account.list_workspaces"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about pagination, result ordering, whether empty results are possible, or what a workspace record contains, and there is no output schema to supply that information.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with no redundant wording, and the scope constraint is placed where it is immediately visible. It is appropriately sized but also quite thin for a tool that has no other documentation surface.
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?
With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what this call returns. It establishes the scope of the list but leaves the shape of workspace objects and any result-limit behavior undefined, leaving a real gap for a zero-argument discovery tool.
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 no parameter semantics to communicate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or paging inputs are needed.
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 workspaces') plus a scope ('accessible under the current personal account'), which separates it from the mutating sibling account.create_workspace by verb alone. It does not explicitly name any sibling or clarify how it differs from workspace-scoped listing tools.
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 sentence defines the scope of results (workspaces under the current personal account) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as account.create_workspace. An agent knows what the call returns in broad terms but not why it would choose it over other discovery paths.
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.