List all workspaces you are a member of, returning each workspace ID. Use the returned workspace_id to target other RecurPost tool operations within that workspace.
List all workspaces the user is a member of (own and shared), with their IDs. Pass a ws_id as workspace_id to other tools to work inside that workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists workspaces and returns IDs, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly disclose edge cases like empty workspace lists, ordering, or any permission requirements. The description is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by a practical usage hint. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to scan.
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 no-parameter, list-type tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned (workspaces with IDs) and how to use the result (pass the ID to other tools). There are no gaps that would prevent an agent from calling it correctly.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and there is nothing else to clarify.
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 the tool lists all workspaces the user is a member of (own and shared) and includes their IDs. This is a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools that handle content, social accounts, or authentication. No ambiguity exists about what the 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 provides clear guidance on how to use the output: pass the ws_id as workspace_id to other tools. It implies when to use this tool (whenever workspace IDs are needed) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. However, since no sibling tool lists workspaces, the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.