Spaceship MCP

list_orchestrations

List all orchestrations in your organization. Optionally filter by project ID to scope results to a single project, with each orchestration showing its members and attached tools.

Instructions

List orchestrations in the organization, optionally filtered by project.

Pass project_id (UUID from list_projects) to scope results to a single project. Each orchestration includes its members and their attached tools.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_orchestrations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	No
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5May 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions that each orchestration includes its members and attached tools, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, rate limits, or the fact that limit parameter exists but is not described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence gives the core purpose, the second explains the main parameter. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (unknown content) and two parameters, the description should cover both parameters and typical list behavior. It only covers project_id, missing limit and any mention of output details or pagination.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain all parameters. It explains project_id and its source, but the limit parameter (default 50) is not mentioned at all. This is a significant gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List orchestrations in the organization, optionally filtered by project.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_agents or list_projects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the project_id parameter ('to scope results to a single project') and references list_projects. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but for a list tool with no alternative for this resource, it is adequate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server