Lists workspace event operations and hidden tools, revealing available actions. Call first to discover tools, then invoke them by name with optional keyword filtering.
Discover workspaceevents: lists the catalog and reveals its hidden tools; call first, then call the tool by name. Ops: 15 generated ops: tasks, subscriptions, message, operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Filter keyword |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.4.1Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"Keyword to filter the returned operations"New value: +"Filter keyword"v0.0.0-semantically-releasedDoes 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 that it reveals hidden tools (useful), but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or how the revealed tools are surfaced. Modest added value over the annotations.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the sequencing instruction. The trailing 'Ops:' fragment is slightly garbled (claims 15 ops but lists four), though it stays brief.
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 single-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate: it names the resource and explains the call-first workflow. The incomplete/ambiguous ops enumeration is a minor gap.
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?
Only one optional 'query' parameter, and the schema already documents it as a 'Filter keyword' at 100% coverage. The description adds nothing about filter syntax, matching behavior, or empty-query semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clear verb+resource: it lists a catalog and reveals hidden tools for the 'workspaceevents' service. The 'call first, then call the tool by name' line plus the ops list distinguishes it from direct action tools, though it does not distinguish it from its many *_discover siblings beyond the resource name.
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?
Gives one useful instruction ('call first'), implying a discovery-before-invocation workflow. But it offers no guidance on when to use this vs. discover_all or the other service-specific discover tools, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.