helloasso_list_my_organizationsLists the organizations your API client can access, helping you locate the organization slug needed for other HelloAsso MCP operations.
Organizations the API client has rights on (useful to find the organization slug).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: results are limited to organizations the API client has rights on, so an empty or partial list is expected rather than an error. Nothing is said about pagination or ordering.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is a noun phrase fragment rather than a complete statement of action, which leaves the 'list' semantics slightly implicit.
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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (accessible organizations) and why an agent would call it (to obtain an organization slug). The only gap is return shape or count, which an agent could infer but must verify at call time.
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 per the baseline this is a 4. There is no parameter semantics to explain and the description does not need to.
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 states the resource and its scope precisely: organizations the authenticated API client has rights on. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling helloasso_get_organization, though it never uses an explicit verb and leans on the name/title to convey the listing action.
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 parenthetical 'useful to find the organization slug' gives a concrete motivating use case, which is real guidance for routing. However, it does not say when to use this versus helloasso_get_organization, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.