Create a private customer workspace. Returns a workspace API token once; save it securely.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"name": "<name>"
},
"name": "workspace_create"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| operationId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important behavior: the workspace API token is returned exactly once and is not recoverable, so the caller must persist it immediately. It omits other material traits for a mutation tool — required permissions/auth, whether the name must be unique, and whether operationId makes the call idempotent.
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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one non-obvious consequence. No filler or restated 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?
No output schema exists, and the description does correctly cover the single significant return value (the one-time token). However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and two undocumented parameters, more is needed: auth requirements, name-uniqueness behavior, and the meaning of operationId are all 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not: `name` and especially `operationId` are never explained. The presence of an operationId parameter strongly implies idempotency/retry semantics that go entirely unstated, leaving an agent to guess whether repeated calls create duplicate workspaces.
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?
"Create a private customer workspace" gives a specific verb (create) and a specific resource with a scope qualifier (private customer workspace), which cleanly separates it from the sibling lifecycle tools (workspace_list, workspace_revoke, workspace_token_rotate). It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not differentiated by comparison.
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 description never says when to call this versus workspace_list (e.g., to avoid duplicates) or what prerequisites/permissions apply. The only procedural note is post-hoc ("save it securely"), which is about handling the result, not about tool selection.
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.