open_workspaceOpen another workspace by name on this computer, starting it when not running and returning its address; if the name is unknown, it lists available workspace names.
Open another workspace on this computer, starting it if it is not running, and say its address. An unknown name answers with the names there are.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The workspace's name, as the person calls it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent operation, and the description adds genuine context beyond that: it starts the workspace if not running (a real side effect) and reports its address. It also discloses failure behavior ('An unknown name answers with the names there are'), which is behavior the annotations do not convey.
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 core action, and no filler. The phrasing is slightly rugged ('say its address', 'An unknown name answers with the names there are') but it stays terse and worth its length.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the auto-start side effect, the returned address, and the unknown-name error path. It is largely complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the single 'name' parameter is already documented in the schema ('as the person calls it'). The description adds no syntax, format, or resolution detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Open another workspace on this computer') and clarifies scope with 'another ... on this computer'. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_workspace and restore_workspace by the verb 'open', though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 implied ('open another workspace'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to add_workspace or restore_workspace. The 'starting it if it is not running' clause gives some context on behavior but does not route the agent among alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.