workbooks_list_all_workbooksRetrieve every workbook in your Sigma organization by automatically paging through all results. Use it to get a complete inventory without manually handling pagination.
List ALL workbooks in the organization, automatically following pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait not in the annotations: pagination is handled automatically, so the caller needs no cursor management. That is useful added context, though nothing about volume or result size is disclosed.
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 sentence that front-loads the scope ('ALL') and the key behavioral note (auto-pagination). No filler, nothing to trim.
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 an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and the tool is a simple parameterless listing. It covers scope and pagination adequately, though it could note the unbounded result size implied by 'ALL' in a large organization.
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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to explain beyond confirming the listing is unfiltered. No gap exists because no parameters are exposed.
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 ALL workbooks') plus an explicit scope ('in the organization'). The capitalized ALL distinguishes it in spirit from workbooks_list_workbooks, but the description never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left implicit.
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?
Mentions that it auto-follows pagination, which implies this is the exhaustive-listing variant, but it never states when to prefer it over workbooks_list_workbooks or workbooks_list_workbooks_shared_with_member. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.