clickup_list_spacesList spaces in a workspace (team). ClickUp REST: GET /team/{team_id}/space.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes | The workspace (team) id. | |
| archived | No | Include archived items — serialized as archived=true/false. Default false. |
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, covering safety. The description adds the REST endpoint and team scope, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, default archived handling, or rate limits. Adequate but not enriched.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No redundant information, perfectly sized for a simple read-only 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 simple list tool with two well-documented parameters and a read-only annotation, the description supplies sufficient context. The REST endpoint adds clarity, and no output schema exists, but the return type is implied by 'List spaces'. Missing return details are not critical here.
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 coverage is 100% with both team_id and archived fully described. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('List') and the resource ('spaces') with a scope ('in a workspace (team)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_workspaces, list_folders, and list_lists by specifying the exact entity type.
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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without contextual direction.
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.
Each tool targets a unique resource+action combination, with clear scoping (e.g., get_tasks vs search_tasks differ by list vs workspace, list_lists vs list_folderless_lists by parent). No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the descriptions make boundaries explicit.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, get_, list_, search_, update_+resource), prefixed with clickup_. No camelCase or unconventional verbs are present.
14 tools is a well-scoped size for a project management API, covering hierarchy traversal (workspaces, spaces, folders, lists), task operations, comments, and user info. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers core CRUD for tasks (create, read, update) and comments, plus full hierarchy listing and search. Minor gaps include no delete task/comment and no update/list operations for folders/lists, but these are workable and don't hinder the primary workflows.