Onda MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

onda_workspace_unmount

Unmount a workspace from its active window, dropping it from the tiled mosaic while keeping it in the global list for later use.

Instructions

Remove a workspace from whichever window currently hosts it (drops it from that window's tiled mosaic and releases the mount registry slot). The workspace continues to exist in the global list — only its on-screen mounting is dropped. Returns { success, workspaceId, windowId, alreadyUnmounted }.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>"
    },
    "name": "onda_workspace_unmount"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workspaceId`	Yes	Workspace to unmount.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.2Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It thoroughly discloses side effects: drops from tiled mosaic, releases mount registry slot, workspace remains in global list, and return object includes 'alreadyUnmounted'.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. It has no redundant fluff while covering purpose, side effects, and return value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a single parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the return shape explicitly and details the operational behavior. Sibling tools are numerous but the description is self-sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter described as 'Workspace to unmount.' The description does not add significant semantics beyond this; it reinforces that the parameter identifies the workspace but offers no new details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Remove a workspace from whichever window currently hosts it.' It specifies the scope (hosting window, tiled mosaic, mount registry) and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining what it does not do (workspace continues to exist globally).

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 description provides clear context: it is used to unmount a workspace from its current window. It implies when to use but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, so it lacks the explicit 'when-not' guidance for a 5.

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