gtm.list_workspacesLists workspaces under a specified container path, helping you identify and select the workspace to inspect or manage.
List workspaces under a container path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| container_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden: it does not confirm read-only safety, describe pagination or result ordering, or explain what a container path means in this API. "List" implies a non-mutating read, but nothing beyond that is disclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate for shape, though it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is simple (one required param, read-only by implication). Still, the path format and any result-set limits are missing, leaving an agent able to call it only by guessing the argument's expected form.
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% for the single required parameter, and the description only restates the schema's own field name ("container path"). It gives no path format, example, or indication of whether an account ID is embedded.
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 scoping qualifier ("under a container path"). The resource noun alone separates it from siblings like gtm.list_tags and gtm.list_containers, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.
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 statement of when to use this versus gtm.list_containers/gtm.list_accounts, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only hint of usage is the implicit hierarchy in "under a container path", which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.