Creates a Git worktree and opens it as a linked workspace, enabling parallel branch work without switching the main checkout.
Create a git worktree and open it as a linked workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| base | No | ||
| path | No | ||
| focus | No | ||
| label | No | ||
| branch | No | ||
| workspace_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the write/idempotency/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds one real behavioral fact beyond them — that a linked workspace is opened as a side effect — but says nothing about failure modes, existing-path/branch collisions, or whether a branch is created.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and the primary action stated first. It is efficient, but the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined economy.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, the description omits the git-repo precondition, default behaviors for unset params, and conflict handling — not enough for correct invocation.
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?
Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and none of them explained in the description. The words 'worktree' and 'linked workspace' hint that path/branch/base/workspace_id exist, but an agent gets no semantics for cwd, base, focus, or label.
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 and resource ('Create a git worktree') plus a meaningful secondary effect ('open it as a linked workspace'). It is distinguishable from workspace_create and worktree_list by naming the git-worktree concept, though it never explicitly contrasts with workspace_create.
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 guidance on when to choose this over workspace_create or worktree_list, and no prerequisites stated (e.g. that the cwd must be inside a git repository). The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.