Create a new workspace under the current personal account.
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": "account.create_workspace"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies a mutation but does not state permission requirements, side effects, duplicate-name behavior, whether the workspace starts empty, or what is returned. For a creation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is appropriately concise, though it could have used the same space to include a critical constraint such as required naming or account scope details.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too thin. It identifies the operation and account scope but omits permissions, side effects, parameter constraints, and result behavior. An agent would need to guess at important operational details.
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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It says nothing about the required 'name', any uniqueness constraints, or what the optional 'description' is used for. The description therefore adds no parameter meaning beyond the bare schema property names.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: create a new workspace. It also adds scope by saying the workspace is created under the current personal account, which helps distinguish it from workspace-scoped operations. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as account.list_workspaces, but the core purpose is clear.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when a new workspace is appropriate, or how it relates to listing or sharing workspaces. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Create'.
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.