MCP WorkBoard CrunchTools

Workboard Get Workstreams Tool

workboard_get_workstreams_tool

Read-only

Retrieve all team workstreams available to the authenticated user, with an optional workstream ID filter to fetch one specific workstream. Personal workstreams are excluded.

Instructions

Get team workstreams accessible to the authenticated user.

Returns all team workstreams the user has access to. Personal workstreams are not included. Optionally filter to a single workstream by ID.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ws_id`	No	Optional workstream ID to fetch a specific workstream.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.0Oct 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / ws_id / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "minimum": 1,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

Addedv0.7.0May 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds real scope semantics beyond that (all accessible team workstreams, personal ones excluded), but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result limits despite returning 'all' workstreams.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and appropriately short. The second sentence partially restates the first ('team workstreams' vs 'workstreams the user has access to'), which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope and the optional filter. The one remaining gap is distinguishing this tool from the similarly named team-workstreams sibling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single ws_id parameter is already fully documented as an optional workstream ID filter. The description merely restates that optional filtering exists, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (get team workstreams) and clarifies scope by excluding personal workstreams. It does not name or differentiate itself from the close sibling workboard_get_team_workstreams_tool, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (browsing all accessible workstreams) and notes the optional single-ID filter, but offers no explicit when-not guidance or routing to the team-workstreams sibling. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server