Retrieves a list of spaces from a COBie workbook or project graph, with optional filtering by floor name and project ID.
List spaces, optionally filtered by Floor, from workbook or project graph.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| excel_path | Yes | ||
| floor_name | No | ||
| project_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state whether it accesses local files, queries a graph, or has any side effects on the workbook or graph.
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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with no redundant information. It gets straight to the point and is easy to read.
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 lacks essential context such as the required parameter (excel_path), how q and limit work, and the expected output structure. Although an output schema is indicated, the description still leaves too many behavioral and input details unspecified.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at 'Floor' and 'workbook or project graph'. Parameters like q, limit, and the required excel_path are not explained, and the relationship between excel_path and project_id remains unclear.
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 action ('List spaces') and the object ('spaces'), with an optional filter by Floor. It distinguishes itself from graph-only siblings by mentioning both 'workbook or project graph', though it doesn't name alternative tools.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools like graph_list_spaces_by_floor. It also doesn't clarify whether to use the workbook or the project graph, or when each input is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.