List the Claude Code sessions currently connected to this workspace over a channel. Each one can be handed a task by name. Use this before assigning work to a claude_channels agent when more than one session may be open, so the task goes to the machine you mean.
| 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, and non-destructive/open-world status, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it explains that sessions are connected 'over a channel' and each can be handed a task by name, which is the operative behavioral trait for the calling agent.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the routing guidance. Reasonably tight, though the trailing 'so the task goes to the machine you mean' slightly restates the preceding when-to-use clause.
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?
For a no-required-param, read-only list tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers purpose, target resource, and the decision context. It never describes the shape of the returned list (names/identifiers used to assign tasks), a minor gap for a tool whose output drives a follow-up call.
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 single in_workspace parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its non-persistent, non-affecting-others behavior. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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 and resource: 'List the Claude Code sessions currently connected to this workspace over a channel.' This clearly identifies what is returned and clarifies the ambiguous name 'desktops'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool by name, so it stops short of 5.
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 before assigning work to a claude_channels agent when more than one session may be open' gives a concrete condition for when to call it. It lacks a when-not statement or a named alternative tool, but the trigger condition is explicit and actionable.
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.