checkWorkspaceSlugCheck if a workspace slug is available, and get the actual slug with a numeric suffix if the requested one is taken.
Returns the slug that would actually be used; suffixed is true when the requested one was taken and a numeric suffix was added.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context about the suffix logic (the requested slug may be taken and a numeric suffix added), which is not evident from annotations. It discloses the conditional return behavior clearly.
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 that conveys the core purpose and key behavioral detail (suffix condition) without any filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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 simple read-only check with one parameter, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it does not explicitly state the return structure (e.g., an object with 'slug' and 'suffixed' fields), though it implies it. Given the lack of an output schema, a slight gap exists, but the core functionality is clear.
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 schema only defines 'slug' as a string, with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies the parameter's role as the 'requested' slug, explaining that the tool checks if it's taken and may add a suffix. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's function: returns the slug that would actually be used, and explains the suffixed flag condition. It uses a specific verb (returns) and resource (slug), and distinguishes it from workspace creation/management tools by focusing on the check behavior.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used before creating a workspace or that createWorkspace is the actual creation step. The intended use case is implied by the name and behavior, but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.