Check shared workspace status to see connected agents, message, task, and file counts plus version, so you can verify activity and coordination state.
Workspace status: agents, message/task/file counts, version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never states that the call is read-only with no side effects, whether it requires authentication/workspace scoping, or how fresh the counts are. Only the parameterless shape hints at a safe, side-effect-free read.
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?
A single terse line with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is telegraphic rather than ungrammatical, and nothing is redundant.
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 output schema, the description is the only source of return information, and it enumerates the categories returned (agents, message/task/file counts, version) adequately. It omits the response shape and any caveats, which leaves a modest gap for a zero-parameter status tool.
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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; nothing in the input schema needs elaboration. The description correctly implies no inputs are required to obtain the snapshot.
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 names the resource (workspace status) and enumerates the contents (agents, message/task/file counts, version), so an agent can infer it is a read-only snapshot of the workspace. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as bus_agents or bus_channels, which return overlapping slices of the same data.
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 on when to call this versus the many sibling listing tools (bus_agents, bus_channels, bus_list_tasks, workspace_list_files). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no indication that this is the cheap overview call before drilling into a specific sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.