Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Onda MCP

Onda MCP

by mindfullabai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

onda_workspace_locate

Find a workspace by name, ID, or root path without listing all workspaces. Retrieves workspace details including its hosting window.

Instructions

Find a workspace by name, id, or rootPath without listing them all. Returns { workspace: { id, name, rootPath, mountedIn } } or { workspace: null }. mountedIn is the windowId currently hosting the workspace, or null if not mounted.

Tool call template

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": "onda_workspace_locate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoWorkspace ID to look up.
nameNoWorkspace name to look up.
rootPathNoWorkspace rootPath to look up.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details the return shape and the meaning of 'mountedIn', including the null case. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the absence of side effects is implied. Minor gaps like error handling or multiple matches prevent a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, return shape, and field meaning. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., multiple matches, error handling), but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that id, name, and rootPath are alternative lookup keys, and explains what the return value looks like for each. This exceeds the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'workspace', specifying lookup by name, id, or rootPath. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'onda_workspace_list' by explicitly noting 'without listing them all'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'without listing them all' indicates a targeted lookup use case, providing clear context for when to use this tool over a listing tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools