chap.workspace.describeReport a workspace's current state: members, enabled profiles, audit length, task and override counts.
Report the current state of a workspace: its members, enabled profiles, audit length, and task and override counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace | Yes | Workspace identifier, e.g. 'wsp_techcorp_support'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the reported fields but discloses nothing further about auth requirements or limits, which is adequate but not rich.
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 efficient sentence with the verb and reported fields front-loaded and zero waste.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned state fields. For a one-parameter read-only tool whose safety profile is already annotated, this covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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?
There is a single 'workspace' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or identifier syntax beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.
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 ('Report') and resource ('workspace'), and enumerates the state it returns (members, profiles, audit length, task/override counts). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling mutations like chap.workspace.create and chap.workspace.set_profiles.
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 'current state' phrasing but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., chap.audit.read for audit details). The agent must infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.