list_organizationsRetrieve the organization tied to the authenticated user, returning its ID for use as organization_id in evaluation endpoints.
Returns the organization the authenticated user belongs to. Use its id as organization_id on the evaluation endpoints.
Read operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Gumloop account; selects private credentials and user/team identity. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The trailing 'Read operation.' simply restates readOnlyHint, and the description does not disclose return shape or credential/identity behavior beyond what the annotation set provides.
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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the downstream usage tip immediately after. The 'Read operation.' sentence is mildly redundant against readOnlyHint but does not harm readability.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description conveys what is returned and how to consume it, which is largely sufficient. It stops short of describing the organization fields returned, a minor gap given there is no output schema.
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 the single optional `account` parameter is already well documented in the schema as selecting private credentials and identity. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the organization the authenticated user belongs to'), clarifying the singular scope despite the plural-sounding name 'list_organizations'. It is distinguishable from list_accounts, which covers a different concept, though the description does not explicitly name siblings.
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?
Tells the agent the downstream purpose of the call: feed the returned `id` into the evaluation endpoints as `organization_id`. That gives clear context for when the tool is useful, but offers no explicit alternatives or conditions for skipping it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.