opencode-workbench

Verify a Workbench clone

verify_clone

Read-onlyIdempotent

Re-check a cloned target to confirm each component is present or missing and verify opencode.json and ~/.env.workbench exist; runs read-only after apply_clone or component changes.

Instructions

Re-check a target after a clone: return a per-component present/missing list plus whether opencode.json and ~/.env.workbench exist. Read-only and idempotent: it runs a detection probe (SSH or local) and checks files, writing nothing. target selects the machine (local or SSH) and its home is where the opencode.json and ~/.env.workbench checks run; components restricts the check to those ids (omit it to check every component, the default); workspace sets the profile path used by component checks. Use it after apply_clone and after component changes; for a pre-clone preview use plan_clone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dryRun`	No	Report only; make no changes.
`target`	Yes	The machine to operate on: this host (local) or a remote host over SSH (ssh).
`skipRepo`	No	Do not clone/update the profile repo on the target.
`workspace`	No	Target directory for the profile repo.
`components`	No	Component ids to include; defaults to required+core.
`profileUrl`	No	Override profile git URL.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`target`	Yes	Label of the target.
`missing`	Yes	Component ids detected as missing.
`envExists`	Yes	Whether ~/.env.workbench exists on the target.
`components`	Yes	Per-component presence detection.
`configExists`	Yes	Whether opencode.json exists on the target.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.0.1Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's 'read-only and idempotent, writing nothing' is partly redundant, but it adds genuinely new context: it names the mechanism (SSH or local detection probe, file checks) and what is checked. Output schema exists, so return format needn't be repeated. Solid added value beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads purpose and output, then behavior, then parameters, then usage routing. Dense but every clause earns its place; only the redundant read-only/idempotent clause overlaps annotations.

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 6-param tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers purpose, non-mutating behavior, parameter roles, and sibling routing. Minor gap: dryRun/skipRepo/profileUrl aren't addressed, though schema descriptions cover them.

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, but the description goes beyond by explaining the role of target ('selects the machine and its home drives where the opencode.json and ~/.env.workbench checks run'), the component-restriction semantics of components, and the profile-path role of workspace. This clarifies how parameters interact, which the schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Re-check a target after a clone') and enumerates the exact output ('per-component present/missing list plus whether opencode.json and ~/.env.workbench exist'). Clearly distinguishes itself from plan_clone (pre-clone preview) and apply_clone.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use ('after apply_clone and after component changes') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('for a pre-clone preview use plan_clone'). Covers the routing decision completely.

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

Deploy Server