workspace_listLists files currently staged in a workspace, returning byte sizes and retention horizon for each entry. Use it to inspect workspace contents before acting.
List the files currently staged in a workspace, with byte sizes and the retention horizon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace_id | Yes | The workspace id to inspect. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results include byte sizes and a retention horizon, and 'staged' implies a non-destructive read of transient content, but it says nothing about permissions, ordering, or size limits.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (scope, payload fields) 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and the returned fields (sizes, retention horizon), which is what an agent needs. It stops short of ordering or pagination details, but nothing critical is missing.
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?
Only one parameter (workspace_id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The phrase 'in a workspace' restates the schema's meaning without adding syntax or format detail, matching the baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (files currently staged in a workspace) and even sketches the payload: byte sizes and retention horizon. It is clearly the read-side counterpart to workspace_push/workspace_put, though it never names those siblings explicitly, which is what keeps it from a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the push/put siblings. The agent must infer the read-only inspection role from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.