list_spacesList accessible SAP Datasphere spaces by environment (DEV, QAS, or PRD) with bounded pagination to explore read-only tenant data structures.
List accessible spaces. Explicit environment; bounded pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| environment | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| space | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| environment | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'bounded pagination,' which is the one piece of behavioral context beyond the annotations, though the actual bound is only visible in the schema's maximum=200.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the constraints follow. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so it scores well on waste but not on completeness.
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 output schema means return values need not be explained, which reduces the burden. Still, for a tool with a required enum parameter and zero schema descriptions, the description should say what environments mean and how paging works; it only alludes to both.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load for three parameters and largely does not. 'Explicit environment' notes that environment is required but never explains the DEV/QAS/PRD enum, and 'bounded pagination' gestures at limit/offset without describing their semantics or interaction.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List accessible spaces'), so an agent knows this enumerates spaces rather than objects. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings like list_objects or get_object beyond the noun, leaving the boundary implicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_objects, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. 'Explicit environment' hints that environment is mandatory but that is already declared in the schema's required list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.