Retrieve all content libraries and their IDs for a specified workspace, or default workspace if omitted.
List all content libraries with their IDs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace_id | No | Workspace ID (ws_id from workspace_list). Omit to use your default workspace. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.3Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / workspace_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Workspace ID (ws_id from workspace_list). Omit to use your default workspace.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is reasonable, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety, mention any permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, but it is perhaps too minimal—it omits the workspace scoping that the parameter implies. Still, it is efficient and well-structured.
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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explicitly mention that libraries are scoped to a workspace (or default), which could confuse an agent about whether 'all' means globally or per-workspace. The schema clarifies this, but the description alone leaves room for ambiguity. No output format is described, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter workspace_id already documented in the schema (including its default-workspace behavior). The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it does not go beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb (List), resource (content libraries), and scope (all with their IDs). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_content_in_library or post_content, which have clearly different purposes, so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does.
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?
The description implies usage as a listing operation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention any prerequisites like the need to call workspace_list first (though the parameter description hints at that). The context is clear only by implication, not by direct statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.