Retrieve all organizations available to your account in the Rockfish AI platform, enabling you to select the correct organization for dataset, model, or workflow operations.
List all organizations
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-mutating call, but nothing is said about auth requirements, whether the result is paginated, or whether it covers every org the caller can see. For a zero-annotation tool this is a thin disclosure.
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 four-word sentence, front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves it doing no more than the minimum.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is technically sufficient to invoke the call. However, it omits whether results are truncated or paginated and how they relate to the singular get_active_organization sibling, leaving modest gaps.
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 rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to explain, and schema coverage is 100%.
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 (List) and resource (organizations) with the scope modifier 'all', so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_active_organization, though the 'all' vs 'active' contrast is arguably self-evident.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling get_active_organization as the alternative for fetching a single/current org. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.