Update workspace details by changing its name, slug, or description.
Update workspace name, slug, or description.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "sprrint_workspace_update"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| slug | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While 'Update' signals a mutation, with no annotations available the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether fields are overwritten wholesale, how null parameters are treated (e.g., leave unchanged), any permissions required, or whether the operation is reversible. The naming of the three fields gives some transparency but not enough.
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 concise sentence with the action front-loaded. It is free of redundancy, though its brevity crosses into under-specification; still, it is appropriately structured for a simple update operation.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description does not fully cover what an agent needs. It omits behavior on null fields, possible validation failures, and what the response looks like. For a workspace mutation tool among many related siblings, this is a meaningful 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the three parameters (name, slug, description) but adds no meaning beyond the property names already present in the schema. There is no mention of constraints, formats, or interaction between parameters, leaving the agent without the semantics needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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 clearly states that the tool updates the workspace name, slug, or description, identifying the verb, resource, and specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like workspace_set_role and workspace_invite by its focus on basic workspace attributes, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from workspace_get.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sprrint_workspace_set_role or sprrint_workspace_get. The description provides no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when an update is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.