clickup_list_workspacesList the workspaces (the ClickUp API calls these "teams") the token can access — their ids are the team_id used by other tools. ClickUp REST: GET /team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the API naming ('teams') and the endpoint (GET /team), which clarifies the source and mapping of the returned IDs. No contradictions with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('List the workspaces'), and efficiently includes the essential naming clarification and REST endpoint. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.
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 this is a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and strong readOnly annotations, the description is complete. It conveys the purpose, the naming nuance, and the practical significance of the returned IDs (team_id), covering all necessary context.
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?
With zero parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 applies. The schema coverage is trivially 100% since there are no properties, and the description provides no redundant parameter info.
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 workspaces accessible by the token, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying the naming mapping to 'teams' and the team_id usage, 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?
The description implies when to use this tool by noting that the returned ids are the team_id used by other tools, giving context for its role in the broader workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list tools are clearly different resources.
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.