Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

origami_workspaces

Origami workspaces — the containers of tables, documents and campaigns.

op:

  • "list" (default): {items: [{id, name, url, createdAt}], nextCursor}. search filters by name substring; pass nextCursor back as cursor.

  • "create": creates a workspace named name (WRITE — needed before an upload-first flow). dry_run=True validates and returns {dry_run: true, would_create: {name}} without creating.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "origami_workspaces"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opNo"list" | "create".list
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
nameNoop="create" — workspace name (≤ 80 chars).
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
cursorNoop="list" — `nextCursor` of the previous page.
searchNoop="list" — case-insensitive substring on the name.
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
dry_runNoop="create" — preview only, nothing written.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: create is a write, and dry_run previews with an explicit `{dry_run: true, would_create: {name}}` shape instead of writing. It also states pagination shape and that `nextCursor` must be passed back. Missing are permission/auth requirements and duplicate-name behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 definition is front-loaded with the resource, then splits by `op` in two compact bullets that carry only operation-specific facts. Backticked return shapes make it skimmable. The opening sentence leans slightly decorative but still supplies useful domain framing.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return shapes for both operations, which is the most important gap it could fill. What remains uncovered is the write-permission/scope requirement and behavior on name collisions — meaningful for a create operation but not enough to make the definition incomplete.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by tying `search` to name-substring filtering, tying `cursor` to the previous page's `nextCursor`, and explaining that `dry_run` validates without writing. The scoping parameters (_org, _group, _project, _instance, _run_id) get no mention, but the schema documents them fully.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a concrete resource (workspaces, defined as containers of tables, documents and campaigns) and enumerates the two supported operations with their return shapes. An agent can tell this apart from origami_tables or origami_campaigns by the resource definition, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only partly guided: ``create`` carries the parenthetical '(WRITE — needed before an upload-first flow)', which is a genuine when-to-use condition, and 'list' (default) is implied as the read path. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to siblings such as origami_tables for listing contents of a workspace.

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

All Tulina toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources