Cortex

getMyWorkspace

TOOL for retrieving current user's owned resources and work items across the Cortex workspace.

    FLEXIBLE REQUEST STRUCTURE:
    The request accepts an object with optional fields for each resource type:
    - myEntitiesRequest: Fetch entities (services, resources, domains) owned by the user
    - myTeamsRequest: Fetch teams the user belongs to
    - myScorecardsRequest: Fetch scorecards associated with user's entities
    - myOpenPRsRequest: Fetch user's open pull requests across all Git repositories
    - myRequestedReviewsRequest: Fetch PRs where user is requested as a reviewer
    - myWorkItemsRequest: Fetch work items (Jira, Linear, Azure DevOps) assigned to the user

    Set one or more fields to fetch multiple resource types in a single call.
    All results are combined into a single response array with mixed item types.

    RESPONSE STRUCTURE:
    Returns a single array of items where each item has an 'itemType' field indicating its type:
    - 'entity': Catalog entities (services, resources, domains)
    - 'team': Teams the user belongs to
    - 'scorecard': Scorecards for user's entities
    - 'pull_request': Open pull requests authored by the user
    - 'review_request': Pull requests where user is requested as reviewer
    - 'work_item': Work items (issues/tickets) assigned to the user

    EXAMPLES:
    1. Fetch only services:
       {"myEntitiesRequest": {"entityTypes": ["service"]}}

    2. Fetch teams and their entities:
       {"myTeamsRequest": {"includeMembers": true}, "myEntitiesRequest": {}}

    3. Get all work (PRs, reviews, Jira tickets):
       {"myOpenPRsRequest": {}, "myRequestedReviewsRequest": {}, "myWorkItemsRequest": {}}

    4. Search entities with filters:
       {"myEntitiesRequest": {"query": "payment", "ownershipSource": "DIRECT", "entityTypes": ["service", "resource"]}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`context`	Yes	Explain why you're invoking this tool now and how its output will be used. Then state how this call supports your overall objective and fits into your broader plan across all tool calls (e.g., why this tool vs. others, and what step it unblocks). Never share any personal details or sensitive information.
`myTeamsRequest`	No	Request for teams the user belongs to
`myOpenPRsRequest`	No	Request for user's open pull requests across all Git repositories
`myEntitiesRequest`	No	Request for all entities (services, resources, domains) owned by the user
`myWorkItemsRequest`	No	Request for work items (Jira, Linear, Azure DevOps issues) assigned to the user
`myScorecardsRequest`	No	Request for scorecards associated with the user's entities
`myRequestedReviewsRequest`	No	Request for pull requests where the user is requested as a reviewer

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the combined response format, the 'itemType' field, pagination through sub-requests, and placeholder behavior. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, and there is an ownershipSource enum mismatch between schema and description, which slightly detracts from trust. Overall, it is transparent enough for an agent to predict 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 long but well-structured with clear headings (FLEXIBLE REQUEST STRUCTURE, RESPONSE STRUCTURE, EXAMPLES). Most sentences serve a purpose, and the examples make the usage concrete. It is not as brief as it could be, but the structure aids comprehension for a complex multi-resource tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (multiple resource types, no output schema), the description is unusually complete. It explains the response array structure, the 'itemType' enum, how to combine requests, and provides four distinct examples covering different use cases. Pagination is documented in schema and reinforced by examples. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 adds value by providing concrete examples for each request object (e.g., {'myEntitiesRequest': {'entityTypes': ['service']}}) and clarifying that fields can be combined. However, the ownershipSource description contradicts its own enum values ('DIRECT, INHERITED, ALL' vs schema enum 'DIRECT, TEAM_HIERARCHY'), which is a negative signal.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'retrieving current user's owned resources and work items across the Cortex workspace.' It then enumerates the resource types and gives examples, which differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on single entity types (e.g., listAllEntities, getEntityDetails). The scope is specific and actionable.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool via the 'FLEXIBLE REQUEST STRUCTURE' section and examples, explaining how to fetch multiple resource types in one call and when to set specific fields. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so there is room for more explicit exclusion guidance.

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

All Cortex tools Inspect

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

C2.7/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or unclear boundaries, notably getEntityDescriptor and listEntityDescriptors share identical descriptions, and getEntityDetails may be confused with them. This ambiguity could easily lead an agent to select the wrong tool for a catalog lookup.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a camelCase getXxx/listXxx pattern, but there are clear exceptions like query_docs and get_more_tools that use snake_case, and the verb set includes get, list, query, and search. The mixed conventions are still readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 31 tools, the surface feels oversized, especially considering the redundant descriptor tools and the meta-tool get_more_tools. The scope is broad but could benefit from splitting into separate servers for catalog, metrics, and other functions.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is almost entirely read-only (get/list/search/query) with no create, update, or delete operations, despite descriptions mentioning 'manage your service catalog'. This leaves significant lifecycle gaps and prevents full catalog management workflows.

Resources

Need Help?