list_available_tenantsLists the tenants (scopes) your token can access, showing each ID and name, so you can choose one with set_tenant.
Lista los tenants (scopes) a los que el token tiene acceso, con su id y nombre. Estos son los tenants entre los que puedes elegir con set_tenant. NO confundir con list_tenants, que lista el árbol de tenants del tenant ACTIVO de la sesión.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the action (list) and the result (tenants with id and name), and implies token-based access. It does not explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free, but listing is inherently non-mutating.
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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a necessary disambiguation note without any fluff.
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?
Given the simple nature of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides all necessary context: what is listed, what fields are returned, and how it differs from a similar tool.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The schema is trivially complete and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.
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 tool lists tenants (scopes) accessible to the token, including id and name. It also differentiates from list_tenants, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
It explicitly says these are the tenants among which you can choose with set_tenant, and warns not to confuse with list_tenants, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.