Read a mounted workspace's pending state and current branch head to check for unmerged changes and identify the active branch before branching, merging, or publishing.
Read a mounted Workspace's pending state and branch head.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ws | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds what is conceptually returned ('pending state and branch head'), but says nothing about behavior when the workspace is not mounted, what 'pending' means, or the shape of the result.
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?
One tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse for a nested-object tool, but there is no wasted text.
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 read-only status call with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description says enough to attempt the call. However, with a 0%-documented nested parameter and no mention of error conditions or return shape, an agent could still misfill ws or misunderstand 'pending state'.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is a nested object with required sandbox and path plus an optional image — none of which is explained in the description. The word 'mounted Workspace' loosely hints that ws identifies an existing mount, but it does not compensate for the total lack of field-level guidance.
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 ('read') and specific resources ('pending state and branch head') scoped to a 'mounted Workspace'. Clear on its own, but does not differentiate from close siblings such as layerfs_status, layerfs_operator_workspace_changes, or layerfs_operator_workspace_overlay.
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 indication of when to use this versus layerfs_status or workspace_changes, no prerequisites (workspace must be mounted?), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the selection rule from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.