Fetch the wiki spaces available to the authenticated user and page through results using limit and cursor.
List spaces the authenticated user can access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100 | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from meta.nextCursor |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the useful behavioral constraint that results are scoped to the authenticated user's access, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations or describe destructive 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: 'List' states the action, 'spaces' the resource, and 'the authenticated user can access' the scope.
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 read-only list tool with well-documented pagination parameters, the description plus annotations and schema fully cover what an agent needs to select and invoke it. No output schema exists, but the meaning of 'List spaces' is unambiguous.
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%, and both parameters (limit, cursor) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but per the rubric the baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high.
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'), a clear resource ('spaces'), and a well-defined scope ('the authenticated user can access'). This differentiates it from siblings like get_space (single space) and list_pages (pages, not spaces).
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: when the goal is to enumerate accessible spaces. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with mutation tools like create_space or delete_space.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.