Return the workspace this MCP API key is currently routed to, with the caller's role inside it. Use this to confirm context before/after workspace.switch.
| 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/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the resolution basis (the API key's current routing) and what the response contains (workspace + caller's role), which matters since there is no output schema.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the usage trigger second.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description names the returned fields, and the parameter is fully documented in-schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the result reflects session vs. key routing in edge cases.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter's non-persistent, single-call semantics are documented there. The description says nothing about `in_workspace`, 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?
States a specific verb (Return) and resource (the workspace this API key is routed to) plus the payload detail (caller's role inside it). This clearly separates it from workspace_list and workspace_switch without needing to open any schema.
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?
"Use this to confirm context before/after `workspace.switch`" gives an explicit trigger condition tied to a named sibling. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or offering workspace_list as the alternative for enumerating workspaces.
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.