list_workspacesRetrieve Hyperstar workspaces available to the current credential so you can identify the workspace_id to pass on later calls or confirm the workspace bound to an API key.
List Hyperstar workspaces available to the current credential. Hosted all-workspace grants pass one organization_id as workspace_id on later calls; an API key is already bound to one workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results depend on credential type — a hosted all-workspace grant yields an organization_id to reuse as workspace_id, while an API key is bound to a single workspace. That credential-conditional shape is exactly what an agent needs before calling.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the identifying statement comes first with the credential nuance immediately after. The second sentence is dense but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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 no-argument, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers scope and the credential-dependent result cardinality, which is the main ambiguity. It stops short of naming the fields a workspace record contains (id, name, organization), a minor gap given no output schema exists to declare them.
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?
With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and the description does not squander it: it explains how the output is consumed downstream (organization_id used as workspace_id), which gives meaning to a value the schema cannot express.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List Hyperstar workspaces') plus the important qualifier 'available to the current credential', which tells the agent the scope is auth-dependent rather than global. It is clear enough to select without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby tools like hyperstar_whoami or get_workspace_usage.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of passing organization_id as workspace_id 'on later calls' signals this is a discovery step that feeds downstream calls. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion of alternatives such as hyperstar_whoami, so the agent must infer the placement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.