Lists workshops and their assigned machines so you can see how printer groups are organized.
List workshops (groups of machines) and which machines are in each.
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": "workshop_list"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose something valuable beyond structured fields: that the response pairs workshops with their member machines. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated or ordered, or how large the list may be — gaps that matter more given the absence of annotations.
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 sentence with the resource front-loaded, the concept clarified in a parenthetical, and the return content appended. No filler and nothing that fails to earn 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?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the entity and hints at the returned structure. Only the read-only/safety framing and any scale or ordering behavior are missing, which are minor for a simple list tool.
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 no parameters, so the schema imposes nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-relevant content, which is acceptable here.
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 and resource ('List workshops') and adds a clarifying gloss ('groups of machines') plus the returned relationship ('which machines are in each'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby read tools like fleet_overview or discover_printers, so it stops short of 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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the domain concept; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling list/overview tools. For a zero-parameter tool whose purpose is self-evident, implied usage is the minimum viable but leaves routing to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.