get_workspaceRetrieve workspace details such as ID and configuration to manage your Lindo AI environment.
Get workspace details.
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": "get_workspace"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17v1.0.16v1.0.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what data is returned or any access requirements. Score 3 is baseline given that annotations cover the safety profile.
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 extremely concise at three words, but it is under-specified. It does not provide enough information to be useful. Conciseness requires providing necessary information in few words, which this fails to do. The description is essentially a repetition of the title.
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 that there is no output schema, the description should describe the return value. It only says 'workspace details' without explaining what those details are. For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete and does not empower the agent to understand what to expect.
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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. There is no need for the description to explain parameters. The description is adequate in this regard, earning a baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.
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 'Get workspace details' is essentially a tautology of the title 'Get Workspace Details' and does not specify what specific details are retrieved. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like get_workspace_analytics or get_workspace_team, which also retrieve workspace-related information.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_workspace_analytics or list_websites. An agent would have no context to decide which tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.