workspace_list_workspace_grantsRetrieve permission grants for a specific workspace, with pagination via page tokens, to audit access and manage workspace permissions.
List permission grants on a workspace. Supports pagination via page token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| workspace_id | Yes |
| 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the operation is paginated via page token, which is useful but thin; it says nothing about grant types returned (user vs group), authorization requirements, or result size limits.
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 efficient sentences with the core action front-loaded and pagination support noted. No wasted words, though the brevity contributes to the semantic gaps elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a grant-listing tool with 0% schema description coverage, the definition omits required-parameter emphasis and any mention of what kinds of grants or principals are returned, leaving the agent with gaps before invoking.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it largely does not. It hints at a page-token parameter but omits that workspace_id is required and that limit defaults to 200, leaving two of three parameters semantically unexplained.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'List permission grants on a workspace.' This tells the agent exactly what is retrieved. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings such as workspace_grant_workspace_access or admin_list_grants, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., admin_list_grants for org-wide grants, or workspace_grant_workspace_access to create grants). No prerequisites or prerequisites around workspace_id are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.