workspace_manifestReturns a live manifest of the configured workspace, listing discovered projects, scenes, levels, runtime paths, and available OpenToonz command-line capabilities.
Return a live manifest of the configured workspace, discovered projects/scenes/levels, runtime paths, and available OpenToonz command-line capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Return' and 'live manifest' imply a read-only, current-state discovery operation and disclose the categories returned, but the description does not explicitly confirm non-mutation, permission requirements, or scan cost.
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 filler. Every listed clause contributes to the scope of the returned manifest.
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 must carry the return-value explanation. It names the high-level categories in the manifest but does not describe their shape or level of detail. Combined with missing usage guidance against the many sibling tools, it is adequate but incomplete.
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 has zero parameters, and the description correctly describes a parameterless workspace inspection operation. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate.
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 gives a specific verb-resource pair: return a live manifest of the configured workspace. It also names the contents: projects, scenes, levels, runtime paths, and CLI capabilities. It is clear as an aggregate workspace-discovery tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_projects, list_scenes, or inspect_project.
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?
No sentence states when to use this tool rather than list_projects, inspect_project, list_scenes, or the other siblings. The aggregate-manifest phrasing implies broad workspace orientation, but that is left to inference and no exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.