get_team_setupCheck what a workspace's team setup includes—skills, plugins, hooks, MCP servers, memory—and what this computer lacks, with remediation steps; read-only.
What this workspace's team setup holds (skills, plugin, hooks, MCP servers, memory) and what this computer lacks, with what to do about it. Call it to check whether this computer is set up. Reads only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and 'Reads only' merely restates that. The genuine added value is behavioral: the tool compares workspace configuration against the local machine and surfaces gaps plus remediation, which the agent could not know from the annotations or the empty schema.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return content before the call instruction, and no filler. The trailing phrase 'with what to do about it' is slightly colloquial but still carries information about remediation content.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so by listing the five categories covered and the gap-analysis behavior. It leaves open the response shape and the scope (workspace-wide vs per-project), which keeps it short of full completeness.
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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies the call is parameterless by framing it as an unconditional workspace-vs-machine check.
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 a specific resource ('this workspace's team setup') and enumerates its contents (skills, plugin, hooks, MCP servers, memory), plus the contrast with what the local computer lacks. That is far more concrete than the title, though it never names a sibling such as get_tech_stack or get_checks to disambiguate.
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?
'Call it to check whether this computer is set up' gives an explicit trigger condition, which is more than most definitions offer. There are no when-not conditions and no pointer to an alternative sibling, so the agent must infer when a different get_* tool is the better choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.