Retrieve all meshes you belong to, including ID, name, type, your role, and active status. Manage your team memberships in meshbook.
List every mesh you're a member of (id, name, type, your role, and which one is currently active).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the returned fields and the active-mesh indicator, which is useful context. It omits any mention of permissions, pagination, or side effects, which matters since it is a list operation with no annotations.
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 a single, tightly scoped sentence that front-loads the operation and follows with the returned fields. It is efficient and contains no filler, though the parenthetical list slightly delays the core action.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return formats, and it still names the key fields for quick orientation. Combined with zero parameters, the definition is nearly complete; only explicit usage context and behavioral notes like permissions are missing.
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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics baseline is 4. There is nothing to clarify in the description, and it appropriately does not invent parameter details.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists the meshes the current user is a member of. This distinguishes it from sibling list_mesh_members, which would list members of a mesh rather than meshes of a user. However, it does not explicitly name or rule out any sibling, so 5 is not warranted.
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 'you're a member of' implies a personal scope, and the mention of active status hints at usage related to mesh selection, but there are no explicit when-to-use rules, exclusions, or named alternatives such as set_active_mesh or list_mesh_members.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.