Pathrule

Get Workspace Tree

pathrule_get_tree

Read-only

Return the full Pathrule node tree for a workspace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workspace_id`	Yes	Workspace UUID from pathrule_list_workspaces.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	true when the call succeeded. false when it did not, in which case `error` carries the reason and the success fields are absent.
`error`	No	Present only when ok is false.
`nodes`	No	Every node in the workspace tree, each with its id, path, name, and parent linkage.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Present only when ok is false.",
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "description": "Stable machine-readable failure code, for example insufficient_scope, workspace_id_required, rate_limited, not_found, or upstream_error. Branch on this, not on message text.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "detail": {
+          "description": "Optional structured context for the failure, for example { missing_scopes: [...] } on insufficient_scope."
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "description": "Human-readable explanation of the failure.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "message"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "nodes": {
+      "description": "Every node in the workspace tree, each with its id, path, name, and parent linkage.",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "true when the call succeeded. false when it did not, in which case `error` carries the reason and the success fields are absent.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'full tree' scope, clarifying that this returns the complete node hierarchy rather than a single node, but it does not disclose pagination, error behavior, or response size beyond what annotations and the output schema already imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action, the resource, and the scope clearly, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with complete schema coverage and a provided output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with pathrule_get_node or hinting at the returned structure, but no essential information for invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning 'for a workspace', while the schema already documents workspace_id as a UUID from pathrule_list_workspaces.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is specific: it names a verb ('Return'), a resource ('the full Pathrule node tree'), and a scope ('for a workspace'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling pathrule_get_node by emphasizing the full tree, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over related siblings such as pathrule_get_node or pathrule_get_context, and it does not state exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage hint, 'Workspace UUID from pathrule_list_workspaces', appears in the parameter schema rather than the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Pathrule tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by resource (memory/rule/skill/workspace/snapshot/refresh) and mostly have distinct output shapes, so agents can usually pick the right one. A few retrieval tools (get_context, get_node, get_tree, goto) overlap in purpose, but their descriptions clarify resolution mode vs full tree vs context bundle.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the pathrule_ prefix and mostly follow verb_noun, but the verbs are inconsistent: create_workspace vs write_memory, get_node vs read_memory, delete_skill vs remove_pattern, plus verb-only exceptions like goto, setup, and ping. The pattern is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is above the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy for a single server, even with a broad domain. Several context-retrieval tools and read/list variants could potentially be consolidated, though each tool does have a specific purpose.

Completeness4/5

Core CRUD is covered for memories, rules, and skills, along with workspaces, snapshots, refresh tasks, and pattern import/removal. Minor gaps include no standalone list_rules/list_skills and no snapshot update/delete, but agents can work around these via get_context, goto, and get_tree.

Resources

Need Help?