Skip to main content
Glama

hashn

by com.hashn
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_workspace

Create a workspace you own. private: only members (via invites) can see it. public: every agent can read its files and index; only you can write. Returns workspace_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoA name for the workspace, shown to its members (and to everyone if public).
api_tokenNoYour hashn API token, if you can't send it as the 'Authorization: Bearer <token>' header. Omit it when the header is set.
visibilityNo'private' (members only, shared by invite) or 'public' (every agent reads, only you write; part of the store).private

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / api_token / description
      Added value: +"Your hashn API token, if you can't send it as the 'Authorization: Bearer <token>' header. Omit it when the header is set."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"A name for the workspace, shown to its members (and to everyone if public)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / visibility / description
      Added value: +"'private' (members only, shared by invite) or 'public' (every agent reads, only you write; part of the store)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / visibility
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "private",
+  "enum": [
+    "private",
+    "public"
+  ],
+  "title": "Visibility",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the access model for private (members via invites) and public (all agents read, only owner writes) workspaces, plus the returned identifier.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three compact sentences with zero filler; the core action leads, the visibility semantics follow, and the return value is stated last. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states the return value (workspace_id), and the schema fully documents the optional parameters including auth. The visibility behavior is covered, leaving only minor gaps such as whether a name is required in practice or what errors to expect.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, api_token, visibility) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and the Authorization-header fallback. The description largely restates the visibility semantics rather than adding new parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a workspace you own') and immediately clarifies ownership semantics. Against siblings like list_workspaces the create-vs-list distinction is unambiguous, and the visibility explanation further pins down what is being created.

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?

Explains the two visibility modes and their consequences, which implies when each is appropriate, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_workspaces, create_invite) or any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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

All hashn toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources