List or retrieve workspaces in Motion to view available workspaces and inspect a specific one by ID when managing tasks and projects.
Manage Motion workspaces - supports list and get operations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | Yes | Operation to perform | |
| workspaceId | No | Workspace ID (required for get operation) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operations are list and get, which implies read-only behavior and no destructive side effects, but it provides no additional context about permissions, errors, rate limits, or response behavior.
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. It wastes little space, though 'Manage' is somewhat redundant given the operation list.
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 simple two-operation tool with a clear schema, the description is adequately complete for selection and invocation. It does not describe return shapes, but no output schema exists and the operations' semantics are straightforward enough to infer.
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 input schema already documents the operation enum and the workspaceId parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond restating that list and get are supported, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 identifies the resource (Motion workspaces) and enumerates the supported operations (list and get), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools operating on other resources. The word 'Manage' is vague, but the operation list makes the actual scope explicit.
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 implies this tool is for reading workspace data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since the sibling tools target different resources, the usage context is largely inferable rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.