portkey_list_workspacesList workspaces in the organization. Portkey: GET /workspaces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_size | No | Number of records per page. Default 50. | |
| current_page | No | Page number (0-based) for pagination. Default 0. |
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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the organization scope and the GET endpoint, but it does not mention pagination behavior or output shape; this is acceptable but not rich.
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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The 'Portkey: GET /workspaces' reference is compact and useful for API identification without adding filler.
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 read-only list operation with fully documented pagination parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description is sufficient. It identifies the resource scope, the endpoint, and the operation clearly; no output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required.
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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions with defaults in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces in the organization'), and the endpoint reference 'GET /workspaces' confirms the operation. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'portkey_get_workspace' by indicating plural collection-level listing.
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 gives clear context for what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like 'portkey_get_workspace' or how pagination should be used. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource or analytics operation; the list/get pairings are standard and clearly separated by resource type. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tools follow a consistent portkey_<verb>_<resource> pattern using snake_case. The verbs are limited to list, get, and create, and the resource names are consistently ordered.
Sixteen tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool maps to a distinct resource or endpoint and none feel redundant. The count is manageable for an admin/observability server.
The read surface is strong: every major resource has list and get coverage, plus analytics and feedback logging. The main gap is the lack of create/update/delete operations for most managed resources, but for an inspection-focused tool this is a workable limitation.