workspaces_permissionsFetch workspace permissions for a Beehiiv account to check available roles and access rights.
Get workspace permissions. Reads account data. OAuth integrations require identify:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private account from BEEHIIV_ACCOUNTS. Defaults to BEEHIIV_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT or the first configured account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by naming the required OAuth scope ('identify:read'), which is auth information not present in the annotations. 'Reads account data' is consistent with readOnlyHint but largely redundant.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler. The first sentence duplicates the title, but the remainder is efficient and each statement carries content.
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 read-only tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema documentation, the description covers purpose, read behavior, and auth. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what 'permissions' are actually returned, leaving a gap an agent might care about.
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?
With a single optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the 'account' parameter including its default fallback. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 first sentence 'Get workspace permissions' is a clear verb+resource but is essentially a verbatim restatement of the title, adding no information beyond it. It does not differentiate this tool from nearby siblings such as workspaces_identify or workspaces_publications_by_subscription_email. Purpose is discernible but thin.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no scenario or context for calling it. The OAuth scope note hints at a prerequisite but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.