Retrieve the organizations associated with the authenticated ConfigCat user to identify which account contexts are available for managing products and feature flags.
This endpoint returns the list of the Organizations that belongs to the user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does little: it reveals the implicit user-scoped filtering but says nothing about permissions required, pagination, result ordering, or what an empty list means. For a listing endpoint with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, though 'This endpoint' is filler and the grammar ('Organizations that belongs') is slightly rough. Nothing is wasted, but nothing is added either.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of truth, and it omits what fields an organization record contains and whether the list is paginated. An agent can invoke it but cannot anticipate the response shape.
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 cleanest possible case — there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema is fully specified.
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 clear verb ('returns the list') and resource ('Organizations'), plus a meaningful scope qualifier ('that belongs to the user') that tells an agent the result is implicitly filtered by the caller's memberships. It does not contrast with nearby siblings such as list-organization-members or list-organization-auditlogs, so differentiation is left to the reader.
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, no prerequisites, no mention of whether it is the entry point for discovering organization IDs consumed by the many org-scoped siblings. An agent must infer usage 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.