Check which local workspaces are currently open, available, or excluded, along with read limits, so you know which folders ChatGPT can access without exposing local absolute paths.
Discover current open workspace names, availability, exclusions and read limits. Local absolute paths are never required remotely.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2-demo.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it reports current open workspaces, availability, exclusions, read limits, and clarifies that local absolute paths are not needed remotely.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and outputs are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a meaningful operational constraint without redundancy.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the workspace-related outputs an agent would need and gives a key operational rule about remote paths. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking this tool.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema leaves nothing undocumented. The description still adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is the relevant semantic content for a parameterless discovery tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') and names the exact resource and outputs: current open workspace names, availability, exclusions, and read limits. This clearly distinguishes it from the file-operation siblings like list_directory and read_file, which concern filesystem paths rather than workspaces.
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 provides clear context for when this tool matters: it reveals workspace identifiers and constraints for remote operations. The statement 'Local absolute paths are never required remotely' implies that workspace names discovered here are the addressing mechanism for other tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.