list_orgsList the organizations the signed-in user belongs to (personal org first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are restricted to orgs the signed-in user belongs to, and ordering places the personal org first. These are behavioral traits not encoded in the annotations. No contradiction with openWorldHint=false — the membership scope actually reinforces the closed-world stance.
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?
One sentence, 13 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the ordering detail tucked cleanly into a parenthetical. Every word carries information; there is zero waste or repetition of the title beyond the necessary verb.
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 0-param read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, scope, and ordering completely. An agent knows exactly what will happen and what it will get. The only conceivable addition — routing to get_org for single-org details — is a nice-to-have, not a gap at this complexity level.
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 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline 4; the description correctly devotes no space to parameters.
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 ('List'), resource ('organizations'), and scope ('the signed-in user belongs to') in one sentence. The parenthetical 'personal org first' adds ordering detail that further pins down behavior. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_org, create_org, and delete_org without needing to open the schema.
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 scope clause 'the signed-in user belongs to' provides clear context for when to invoke this tool — when the agent needs the current user's org membership list, not a specific org (get_org) and not a mutation (create_org/delete_org). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for a 0-param list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions clearly explain boundaries. However, list_diagrams/list_documents and get_board/get_board_image are two pairs that both concern the same underlying resource, so an agent could initially select the wrong one without reading carefully.
Nearly all tool names are snake_case verb_noun pairs such as create_project, update_document, and unpublish_listing, which is very consistent. The exceptions are bare 'draw' and the non-pattern 'whoami', so it is not a perfect 5.
With 38 tools, the surface exceeds the 25+ threshold and spans orgs, projects, documents, board drawing, membership, and marketplace publishing. While each subdomain is individually reasonable, the aggregate is heavy and likely to overwhelm an agent; several related actions could be grouped or exposed more sparingly.
The set covers the main lifecycle: org/project/document CRUD, board rendering and editing, member management, and template publish/use/update. Minor gaps remain—there is no get_project single-resource read, and groups/links/notes are manipulated only through the generic update_board rather than dedicated tools—but these are workable.