List the tenants available to the signed-in user, returning id, name, slug, and flags for last or selected status to identify the active workspace.
List tenants for the signed-in user (normalized: id, name, slug, is_last, is_selected).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It partially does this by mentioning that output is 'normalized' and listing the fields, which reveals the response shape. However, it does not disclose whether any session/authentication is required, whether results are paginated, ordered, or if any side effects occur. The read-only list behavior is implied but not explicitly stated.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, scope, and output normalization. There is no filler, and every element contributes to understanding the tool.
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 parameterless list operation, the description is complete enough. It states the targeted resource, the user scope, and the normalized output fields, so an agent can invoke it correctly and interpret the result without additional context. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the listed fields.
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 and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds meaningful value by specifying the normalized output fields, which helps the agent understand the exact return shape without needing an output schema.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'List tenants for the signed-in user'. It also enumerates the normalized output fields, which clarifies the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like yaaif_set_tenant, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 'for the signed-in user' implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like yaaif_set_tenant and yaaif_whoami are not referenced, so the agent must infer the usage context from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.