Lists all Spaces buckets and their item counts, organized as a tree structure.
List all Spaces buckets with item counts (tree structure)
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": "spaces_list_buckets"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation lists buckets and returns item counts in a tree structure, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, what permissions are required, or any side effects. The verb 'List' suggests a read operation, but additional context is limited.
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 one concise sentence of 10 words, front-loading the action and resource, and adding relevant output detail without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 parameterless listing tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies the action, scope, and output format ('item counts (tree structure)'). The lack of an output schema means return structure is not fully specified, but the description provides sufficient expectation-setting for a simple list operation.
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 input schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all Spaces buckets', with additional detail on output ('item counts (tree structure)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spaces_get_bucket, which likely retrieves a single bucket, and spaces_create_bucket for creation.
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 for viewing an overview of all buckets via 'List all Spaces buckets', but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like spaces_get_bucket or spaces_search. No alternatives are named, and no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.