namespaces_listList project namespaces you can read, filtering by namespaces/read permission on each name before pagination.
List readable project namespaces
Filters each namespace by namespaces/read on its name before pagination; a global wildcard grant is not required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: per-item permission filtering on the namespace name occurs before pagination (so pages can be short or empty), and no global wildcard grant is needed to call it. What is missing is any statement about result ordering or what a namespace record contains.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key caveat. The first sentence largely repeats the title, which is mild redundancy, but there is no filler or hedging.
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 read-only list tool with annotations and only two optional parameters, the definition covers the important access-control surprise but leaves pagination semantics and the shape of returned namespace objects unexplained, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Adequate to call correctly, incomplete for interpreting results.
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 schema documents neither limit nor cursor beyond types, defaults, and bounds. The description alludes to pagination existing but gives no meaning for limit/cursor, no max-page behavior, and no indication of whether filtering affects the effective page size relative to the limit. With low coverage the description should compensate and does not.
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 readable project namespaces") and adds the scope qualifier "readable," which distinguishes it from a raw namespace listing such as namespace_get. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against (e.g. temporal_namespaces_list or namespace_get), so it falls short of the 5 bar.
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 only implied: the note that results are filtered by namespaces/read tells an agent this is a visibility-scoped enumeration, but there is no explicit "use this when..." or exclusion pointing to namespace_get or temporal_namespaces_list. An agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.