Lists authorized workspaces by opaque ID without exposing filesystem roots, enabling secure Inkscape operations.
Lists authorized workspaces by opaque ID without exposing their filesystem roots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaces | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description's extra detail is a privacy/security guarantee about not leaking filesystem roots, which adds a little value, but it says nothing about scope, pagination, auth requirements, or the shape of the returned list.
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 with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument list tool, though it could carry one more clause of context without bloat.
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 no-param read tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description only needs to clarify scope and security behavior. It covers the opaque-ID/root-hiding guarantee but leaves callers without any signal about scope, auth, or how the list relates to the rest of the workspace tools.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline for a 4; the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. There is nothing in the description that conflicts, and no missing parameter semantics to compensate for.
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 (Lists) and resource (authorized workspaces), and adds the distinguishing detail that it returns opaque IDs and never exposes filesystem roots. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling like workspace_list_documents, so it stops just short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus workspace_list_documents or other workspace-related tools, and no exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.