Skip to main content
Glama

Dock

by ai.trydock

update_workspace

Rename a workspace, change its slug, switch its default-view mode, or flip its visibility (private | org | unlisted | public). Pass any subset of name, new_slug, mode, visibility; fields you omit are left unchanged. Slug renames preserve old URLs via WorkspaceSlugAlias so previously-shared links keep resolving. Visibility flips disconnect every live SSE subscriber so reconnects re-authenticate against the new visibility. Editor role required. Emits workspace.renamed and/or workspace.visibility_changed. Visibility WIDENING (private → org/unlisted/public, org → unlisted/public, unlisted → public) is consent-gated: pass consent_mode: "web" to return an approval_url the user clicks; otherwise the call returns consent_required and you must re-issue with consent_mode set. Visibility narrowing + non-visibility updates execute immediately on the agent's role.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoNew default-view preference for the workspace's first tab. Optional. Doesn't add or remove surfaces; use `create_surface` / `delete_surface` to change the actual tab set.
nameNoNew display name. Optional.
slugYesThe current workspace slug
new_slugNoNew URL slug (lowercase kebab-case, 3-64 chars). Optional. Must be unique within the org. Old slug stays redirectable via the alias table.
visibilityNoNew visibility. Optional. `private` = explicit members only; `org` = every org member gets virtual editor; `unlisted` = anyone with the URL can view; `public` = listed and viewable to all. Widening transitions are consent-gated; see `consent_mode`.
consent_modeNoRequired when `visibility` widens audience. Pass 'web' to surface a click-to-approve URL the user opens in their browser; first call returns { status: 'approval_required', approval_url, polling_url }, you print approval_url in chat and poll polling_url for the result.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses side effects (SSE disconnect, slug alias redirection), role requirement, emitted events, and the consent-gating flow for visibility widening. This is thorough, transparent documentation of mutation behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a dense paragraph of 8 sentences, each providing necessary detail for a complex tool. It is front-loaded with purpose, but the lack of structural separation (bullets/paragraphs) makes it slightly harder to scan. Still, no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers core actions, side effects, role requirement, consent flow, and events, which is strong given the tool's complexity and absence of output schema. It does not specify the success response shape (e.g., updated workspace object) or error responses, but these are minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, setting baseline at 3, but the description adds the key semantic that 'fields you omit are left unchanged' and clarifies consent_mode's role in widening. Although per-parameter details are in the schema, this global behavior is not explicit there, justifying a score above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear list of actions: rename, change slug, switch default-view mode, or flip visibility. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like create_workspace (create) and update_workspace_member (member-specific).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the tool is for updating workspace settings and notes 'Editor role required,' implying its use for authorized modifications. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases (e.g., 'use create_workspace for new workspaces'), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Dock toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.

Resources