onshape_get_workspacesLists all workspaces (branches) for a given Onshape document ID, so users can find the correct workspace alias for accessing parts, assemblies, and other document elements.
List a document's workspaces (branches).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | Document id — the <doc> in cad.onshape.com/documents/<doc>/w/<ws>/e/<elem>. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the clarification that workspaces are 'branches', which is useful domain context. However, it does not disclose what the response contains (e.g., workspace names, IDs, default workspace) or any pagination/ordering behavior. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It adds the parenthetical clarification '(branches)' which is valuable domain context without waste. Every word earns its place.
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, read-only list operation with one fully documented parameter, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of workspace names/IDs), but since there is no output schema and the tool is simple, this is a small omission. The read-only annotation covers the safety profile.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'doc' parameter, including its format and example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a document's workspaces (branches)'), which clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like onshape_list_versions or onshape_get_elements, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer the 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 implies usage context: it lists workspaces for a document, which is a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like onshape_list_versions or onshape_get_document, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing a document ID). The context is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.