list_workspacesList live FreeCAD workspaces and pool limits to see which slots are active before claiming or closing one.
List the live workspaces (freecadcmd processes) and the pool limits. Each entry is {name, alive, idle_s, current}. Use to see who is holding a slot before claiming or closing one. Returns {current, max, idle_reap_s, workspaces: [...]}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true exemplifying non-destructive behavior. The description adds the critical context that this tool shows who holds slots before claiming/closing, and the return object shape. With annotations covering safety, this additional context makes it fully transparent for an agent.
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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating purpose flagged with crucial usage guidancechers, followed by brief return format. No extraneous words; it maximizes information density.
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?
Given it has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format and usage context comprehensively. It is sufficient for an AI agent to invoke correctly without additional information.
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 tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty object). The description explains the fields in the output (name, alive, idle_s, current) and the return structure, which is valuable as there is no output schema. This compensates for the absence of parameter details.
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 states the tool lists live workspaces (freecadcmd processes) and pool limits, defining each entry's fields and the return object. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the resource (workspaces) and providing a specific verb. It avoids ambiguity and conveys a specific purpose.
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 includes 'Use to see who is holding a slot before claiming or closing one,' which clearly indicates context for use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use alternatives, but given the tool's specificity and the absence of closely related siblings (e.g., use_workspace, close_workspace), the usage guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.