List the workspace's artifacts (most-recently-updated first): title, url, access level, version, view count. Soft-deleted artifacts are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered most-recently-updated first, soft-deleted artifacts are hidden, and the returned fields are enumerated. It stops short of stating pagination or result-limit behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler; the sort-order parenthetical earns its place and the exclusion note is the last useful fact.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (title, url, access level, version, view count) and the ordering, which is what an agent needs to use the result. Only pagination/volume limits are unaddressed.
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%, so the single in_workspace parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all and adds no syntax or scoping nuance, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clear specific verb (List) plus resource (workspace's artifacts), and it specifies scope details: sort order (most-recently-updated first) and the fields returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest sibling artifacts_get, but the singular/plural naming and the returned-field list make the distinction inferable.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool plainly exists to enumerate artifacts, yet there is no explicit 'use this when you need X instead of artifacts_get' routing and no prerequisites mentioned. No misleading guidance, just no when-to-use framing.
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.