List publicly available spaces across accounts, including owner, rights, size, and pricing, so you can decide which spaces to request access to. Read-only.
List publicly available spaces across all accounts (name, owner, offered rights, size, pricing) so an agent can decide what to request access to. Read-only; no object content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is read-only, public, across all accounts, and returns only metadata, not object content. This is solid for a simple list operation, though it omits details like pagination and error behavior.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds essential scope and safety information. Every word contributes value without redundancy.
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?
The description covers purpose, scope, returned fields, and read-only behavior, which is strong for a simple list tool. However, with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the lack of explanation for 'limit' and 'query' leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke 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 input schema provides no descriptions for 'limit' and 'query', and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention either parameter at all, leaving an agent without any guidance on query syntax, limit effects, or defaults.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a specific resource 'publicly available spaces across all accounts' and enumerates the returned fields (name, owner, offered rights, size, pricing). It also states its purpose, helping an agent decide what to request access to, which distinguishes it from siblings like request_access or query.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: before requesting access, to see what spaces are available. It also notes 'read-only' and 'no object content', which indicates it is not for content-level inspection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusion conditions, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.