List every workspace the caller is a member of, with is_current marking the workspace this MCP key is currently routed to. Pair with workspace.switch to change the active workspace without reconnecting.
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds value beyond them by defining the is_current field and noting that switching workspaces via workspace.switch does not require reconnecting. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but for a simple read tool this is solid added context.
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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the workflow hint. No redundant restatement of the name or title.
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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the one piece of return-value meaning an agent actually needs (is_current) plus the follow-up action. Minor gaps around ordering or pagination remain, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
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% and the single in_workspace parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description says nothing about it, so baseline 3 applies: the schema carries the semantics and the description neither compensates nor detracts.
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 with scope: 'List every workspace the caller is a member of.' That scope naturally distinguishes it from workspace_current (single workspace) and workspace_members (people in a workspace), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings. It also explains the is_current marker, so the agent knows what the payload means.
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?
The second sentence gives a concrete workflow: pair with workspace.switch to change the active workspace without reconnecting. That tells the agent when this tool fits into a sequence, but it does not state when to prefer this over workspace_current or list explicit exclusions.
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.