Lists all active workspaces with their IDs, names, and window counts to help you track and organize your desktop.
List all active workspaces with their IDs, names, and window counts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return contents (IDs, names, window counts) and the 'active' filtering behavior, but says nothing about ordering or whether hidden/inactive workspaces are excluded beyond the 'active' label.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence carrying verb, scope, and return fields with zero filler. Every element earns its place.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete because it names the fields returned. Minor gap: no mention of result ordering or how empty workspace lists are handled.
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?
Zero parameters at 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description correctly implies a no-argument list call.
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 (List) and resource (workspaces) with clear scope ('all active') and enumerates the returned fields (IDs, names, window counts). This distinguishes it from get_active_workspace (single) and switch_workspace (mutation), though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 word 'active' hints at scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no reference to alternatives like get_active_workspace or switch_workspace. The agent must infer the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.