workspace_createCreate a new named workspace when the user requests one. List existing workspaces first, since each call adds a separate workspace rather than reusing one.
Create a new workspace when the user asks for one. Check workspace_list first. Each call creates another workspace; retries do not reuse the first one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with a concrete warning: 'Each call creates another workspace; retries do not reuse the first one.' That duplicate-on-retry behavior is genuinely useful context beyond the annotation flags, though auth/permission expectations are not addressed.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The action, the prerequisite, and the critical retry caveat are all stated plainly.
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 one-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the pre-check, and the non-idempotent behavior. It could say more about ownership/permissions of the resulting workspace, but the coverage is solid for the tool's complexity.
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 0% for the single required 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It says nothing about naming rules, uniqueness, or length, leaving the agent to read maxLength/minLength from the schema alone.
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+resource ('Create a new workspace'), which is unambiguous. It references the sibling workspace_list as a prerequisite, giving some differentiation, but it never contrasts itself with create-adjacent siblings like workspace_pause/workspace_resume or project_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?
It states the trigger condition ('when the user asks for one') and a precondition/alternative ('Check workspace_list first'). That is clear context, though it stops short of explicit when-not guidance such as avoiding use when a workspace already exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.