Retrieve all Segment sources in a workspace, including IDs, names, slugs, enabled status, and write key settings, to inspect source configuration without making changes.
List all Segment sources in the workspace (id, name, slug, enabled, write key settings).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned records (id, name, slug, enabled, write key settings), which is useful output context, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, permissions, or whether disabled sources are included.
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?
A single tightly written sentence with the scope ('all ... in the workspace') front-loaded and the returned fields in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the structure is unremarkable and does not flag the sibling relationship.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the fields that come back, and with zero parameters there is little else an agent needs to invoke it. It is nearly complete; only pagination/limits remain unattested, which is a minor gap for a simple workspace listing.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is none to add.
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 pairs a specific verb (List) with a specific resource (Segment sources in the workspace) and even enumerates the fields returned (id, name, slug, enabled, write key settings). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular get_source sibling, though it never explicitly states that distinction.
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 phrase 'List all' implies bulk enumeration and thus hints that a single-record lookup belongs to get_source, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. Usage must be inferred from the sibling name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.