Get a complete list of all whiteboards in your workspace. Use it to access and manage any board directly.
List all whiteboards.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_whiteboards"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all whiteboards' implicitly indicates a read-only operation, which is a behavioral trait, but it doesn't explicitly state safety aspects like 'does not modify data' or any potential side effects. It provides minimal behavior information, just the basic action.
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: 'List all whiteboards.' It is front-loaded and contains zero unnecessary words. For a tool with no parameters, this is appropriately sized and perfectly concise.
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?
Given the tool's trivial complexity (no parameters, no explicit output schema), the description is largely complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does. However, it doesn't describe the return format or any potential limitations (e.g., pagination), but for a simple 'list all' operation, such details are likely unnecessary.
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 and the input schema covers 100% of them (there are none). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since none exist, and it correctly omits any parameter details.
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 'List all whiteboards' uses a specific verb 'list' with the resource 'whiteboards' and explicitly says 'all', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_whiteboard (which fetches a single whiteboard) and create/update/delete whiteboards, as well as other list_* tools, by specifically targeting whiteboards.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools such as get_whiteboard or whiteboard-specific operations. The only context is the action itself, so the agent receives no direction on choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.