This server provides a comprehensive, context-aware virtual filesystem workspace system through MCP (Model Context Protocol) with isolated workspaces, multiple storage backends, and state checkpointing.
Workspace Management: Create, destroy, list, switch between, and retrieve information about isolated virtual filesystem workspaces with flexible storage scopes (SESSION/ephemeral, USER/persistent, SANDBOX/shared) and diverse providers (memory, filesystem, SQLite, S3).
File Operations: Full filesystem capabilities including read, write, list contents (ls), display directory trees (tree), create directories (mkdir), remove files/directories (rm), move/rename (mv), and copy (cp) with recursive support.
Navigation & Search: Change directory (cd), print working directory (pwd), find files by glob pattern (find), and search file contents (grep).
State Management: Create, restore, list, and delete checkpoints to save and restore filesystem states for version control and recovery.
Integration & Access: Exposes all operations as MCP tools for AI agents like Claude Desktop via stdio or SSE transport, with programmatic Python API using async/await patterns and Pydantic models for type safety.
Architecture: Built on unified namespace architecture (chuk-artifacts) with virtual filesystem engine (chuk-virtual-fs), automatically scoping workspaces based on user/session context from MCP.
Uses Pydantic models for all requests and responses in the virtual filesystem operations, providing type-safe data validation and serialization.
Implemented in Python with full async/await support, providing programmatic access to virtual filesystem workspaces and file operations.
Provides SQLite as a storage provider option for persistent virtual filesystem workspaces, enabling portable database-backed file storage.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@chuk-mcp-vfs create a workspace called 'project-docs' and list its contents"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP server providing virtual filesystem workspaces via the unified namespace architecture.
✅ Unified Architecture - Built on chuk-artifacts namespace system ✅ Context-Aware - Automatic user/session scoping from MCP context ✅ Storage Scopes - SESSION (ephemeral), USER (persistent), SANDBOX (shared) ✅ Pydantic Native - All requests and responses use Pydantic models ✅ Async Native - Fully async/await throughout ✅ Type Safe - Enums and constants instead of magic strings ✅ Multiple Workspaces - Create and manage isolated virtual filesystems ✅ Full VFS Operations - read, write, ls, tree, mkdir, rm, mv, cp, cd, pwd, find, grep ✅ Checkpoints - Save and restore filesystem state at any point ✅ MCP Integration - Expose all operations as MCP tools for AI agents
Related MCP server: MCP Workspace Server
chuk-mcp-vfs → Workspace management + VFS tools
↓ uses
chuk-artifacts → Unified namespace architecture
↓ manages
Namespaces (WORKSPACE) → Each workspace is a namespace
↓ provides
chuk-virtual-fs → Async VFS with multiple storage providers
↓
Storage Provider → memory, filesystem, sqlite, s3Key Concepts:
Everything is VFS: Both blobs and workspaces are VFS-backed via namespaces
Scopes: SESSION (per-conversation), USER (per-user persistent), SANDBOX (shared)
Context-Aware: user_id and session_id automatically from MCP server context
Grid Architecture: All namespaces stored in unified grid structure
# Basic installation
pip install chuk-mcp-vfs
# With FUSE mounting support (Linux/macOS)
pip install chuk-mcp-vfs[mount]
# Development
pip install -e .[dev]The server supports two transport modes:
# Default - runs with stdio transport
chuk-mcp-vfs
# Explicitly specify stdio transport
chuk-mcp-vfs --transport stdio
# With debug logging
chuk-mcp-vfs --transport stdio --debug# Run with SSE transport (default: localhost:3000)
chuk-mcp-vfs --transport sse
# Custom host and port
chuk-mcp-vfs --transport sse --host 0.0.0.0 --port 8080
# With debug logging
chuk-mcp-vfs --transport sse --debugusage: chuk-mcp-vfs [-h] [--transport {stdio,sse}] [--host HOST] [--port PORT] [--debug]
options:
-h, --help show this help message and exit
--transport {stdio,sse}, -t {stdio,sse}
Transport type: 'stdio' for Claude Desktop or 'sse' for streaming HTTP (default: stdio)
--host HOST Host to bind to (only for SSE transport, default: 127.0.0.1)
--port PORT, -p PORT Port to bind to (only for SSE transport, default: 3000)
--debug, -d Enable debug loggingfrom chuk_mcp_vfs import run_server
# Start with stdio transport (for Claude Desktop)
run_server(transport="stdio")
# Start with SSE transport (for HTTP/streaming)
run_server(transport="sse", host="0.0.0.0", port=8080)import asyncio
from chuk_mcp_vfs import (
WorkspaceManager,
ProviderType,
StorageScope,
WriteRequest,
)
from chuk_mcp_vfs.vfs_tools import VFSTools
async def main():
# Initialize manager (uses chuk-artifacts under the hood)
workspace_manager = WorkspaceManager()
tools = VFSTools(workspace_manager)
# Create SESSION-scoped workspace (ephemeral, tied to session)
await workspace_manager.create_workspace(
name="my-workspace",
provider_type=ProviderType.MEMORY,
scope=StorageScope.SESSION, # or USER for persistence
)
# Write file
await tools.write(WriteRequest(
path="/hello.txt",
content="Hello from VFS!"
))
# Read file
result = await tools.read("/hello.txt")
print(result.content)
asyncio.run(main())Tool | Description |
| Create new workspace with provider (memory, filesystem, sqlite, s3) |
| Delete workspace and clean up resources |
| List all workspaces |
| Switch active workspace |
| Get workspace details |
| Mount workspace via FUSE (planned) |
| Unmount workspace (planned) |
Tool | Description |
| Read file contents |
| Write file with content |
| List directory contents |
| Show directory tree structure |
| Create directory |
| Remove file/directory (with recursive option) |
| Move/rename file/directory |
| Copy file/directory (with recursive option) |
Tool | Description |
| Change current working directory |
| Print working directory |
| Find files by glob pattern |
| Search file contents |
Tool | Description |
| Create checkpoint of current state |
| Restore from checkpoint |
| List all checkpoints |
| Delete checkpoint |
Add to claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"vfs": {
"command": "chuk-mcp-vfs",
"args": []
}
}
}Or install with uvx (no global installation needed):
{
"mcpServers": {
"vfs": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["chuk-mcp-vfs"]
}
}
}Then you can use natural language to interact with the filesystem:
You: Create a workspace called "myproject" and set up a Python project structure
Claude: [Uses workspace_create and mkdir tools]
You: Write a simple Flask app to main.py
Claude: [Uses write tool with Python code]
You: Create a checkpoint called "initial-setup"
Claude: [Uses checkpoint_create]
You: Make changes... actually restore to the checkpoint
Claude: [Uses checkpoint_restore]See examples/basic_usage.py for a complete working example.
The unified architecture provides three storage scopes:
from chuk_mcp_vfs.models import StorageScope
# Create session-scoped workspace (default)
await workspace_manager.create_workspace(
name="temp-work",
scope=StorageScope.SESSION, # Tied to current session
)Lifetime: Expires when session ends
Perfect for: Temporary workspaces, caches, current work
Grid path: grid/{sandbox}/sess-{session_id}/{namespace_id}
Access: Only accessible from same session
# Create user-scoped workspace
await workspace_manager.create_workspace(
name="my-project",
scope=StorageScope.USER, # Persists across sessions
)Lifetime: Persists across sessions
Perfect for: User projects, personal data
Grid path: grid/{sandbox}/user-{user_id}/{namespace_id}
Access: Accessible from any session for the same user
# Create sandbox-scoped workspace
await workspace_manager.create_workspace(
name="shared-templates",
scope=StorageScope.SANDBOX, # Shared across all users
)Lifetime: Persists indefinitely
Perfect for: Templates, shared docs, libraries
Grid path: grid/{sandbox}/shared/{namespace_id}
Access: Accessible by all users
from chuk_mcp_vfs.models import ProviderType
# In-memory (fast, temporary)
ProviderType.MEMORY
# Filesystem (persistent)
ProviderType.FILESYSTEM
# SQLite (portable database)
ProviderType.SQLITE
# S3 (cloud storage)
ProviderType.S3All requests and responses are Pydantic models:
from chuk_mcp_vfs.models import (
# Workspace models
WorkspaceCreateRequest,
WorkspaceCreateResponse,
WorkspaceInfo,
# File operation models
WriteRequest,
WriteResponse,
ReadResponse,
ListDirectoryResponse,
# Navigation models
FindRequest,
FindResponse,
GrepRequest,
GrepResponse,
# Checkpoint models
CheckpointCreateRequest,
CheckpointCreateResponse,
CheckpointInfo,
)# Install with dev dependencies (using uv)
uv pip install -e ".[dev]"
# Or with pip
pip install -e ".[dev]"The project uses uv as the package manager and includes comprehensive quality checks:
# Run all checks (lint, typecheck, tests with coverage)
make check
# Individual checks
make lint # Lint with ruff
make format # Format code with ruff
make typecheck # Type check with mypy (zero errors!)
make test # Run tests
make test-cov # Run tests with coverage report
# Build
make build # Build distribution packages
make clean # Clean build artifactsThe project maintains high test coverage:
Name Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
src/chuk_mcp_vfs/__init__.py 100%
src/chuk_mcp_vfs/checkpoint_manager.py 98%
src/chuk_mcp_vfs/checkpoint_tools.py 100%
src/chuk_mcp_vfs/models.py 100%
src/chuk_mcp_vfs/server.py 66%
src/chuk_mcp_vfs/vfs_tools.py 90%
src/chuk_mcp_vfs/workspace_manager.py 92%
src/chuk_mcp_vfs/workspace_tools.py 100%
------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 91%77 test cases covering:
Workspace management (18 tests)
VFS operations (26 tests)
Workspace tools (11 tests)
Checkpoint management (7 tests)
Checkpoint tools (4 tests)
Server integration (10 tests)
The codebase is fully type-checked with mypy:
✅ Zero mypy errors
✅ All dependencies have py.typed markers
✅ Strict type checking enabled
✅ No Any types in public APIs
Thin wrapper around chuk-artifacts ArtifactStore
Each workspace is a WORKSPACE-type namespace
Tracks current working directory per workspace
Context-aware: automatically uses user_id/session_id from MCP context
Thread-safe workspace operations
All workspaces stored in unified grid architecture
Automatic scope-based isolation (SESSION/USER/SANDBOX)
Namespaces provide VFS instances via get_namespace_vfs()
Grid paths make ownership and scope explicit
Wraps chuk-virtual-fs AsyncSnapshotManager
Provides workspace-scoped checkpoints
Metadata tracking for each checkpoint
Wraps async VFS operations with Pydantic models
Path resolution relative to current working directory
Error handling and validation
Registers all tools with chuk-mcp-server
Automatic JSON schema generation from Pydantic models
Context variables for user/session tracking
Stdio transport for Claude Desktop
Core VFS operations (read, write, ls, tree, mkdir, rm, mv, cp, cd, pwd)
Workspace management with namespace integration
Checkpoint system with snapshot support
Pydantic-native models (no dictionary goop!)
Async-native implementation
Type safety (zero mypy errors)
Comprehensive test suite (91% coverage, 77 tests)
GitHub Actions CI/CD workflows
Search operations (find, grep)
Multiple storage providers (memory, filesystem, sqlite, s3)
Storage scopes (SESSION, USER, SANDBOX)
Context-aware operations (automatic user_id/session_id)
MCP server integration
Full documentation
FUSE mounting implementation (placeholder exists)
Template system integration (basic support exists)
Workspace import/export
File watching and event notifications
Permissions system
Performance optimizations for large filesystems
WebDAV server support
Compression and deduplication
Workspace sharing and collaboration features
Apache License 2.0 - see LICENSE file
Contributions welcome! Please ensure:
All code uses Pydantic models (no dict returns)
All code is async native
Use enums/constants instead of magic strings
Add tests for new features
Update documentation
Built on top of:
chuk-artifacts - Unified namespace architecture
chuk-virtual-fs - Virtual filesystem engine
chuk-mcp-server - MCP framework with context management
Change current working directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid paths), permissions needed, whether it affects other operations, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action effectively.
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?
Given the tool's mutation nature (changing state), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or side effects, which are critical for safe usage in a filesystem context.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter 'path'. It implies 'path' is the target directory but doesn't specify format (absolute vs. relative), constraints (e.g., existence), or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic structure.
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 clearly states the verb ('change') and resource ('current working directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'pwd' (which shows the current directory) or 'workspace_switch' (which might have similar functionality), but the core action is well-defined.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'workspace_switch' or 'workspace_mount', or when it might be inappropriate (e.g., navigating to non-existent paths). The description assumes context without explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a checkpoint of the current workspace state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the checkpoint is reversible, storage implications, or what happens on failure, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loaded with the tool's core action. It earns its place by stating the purpose directly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, or context compared to siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The single parameter 'request' is undocumented in both schema and description, failing to compensate for the coverage gap or explain its purpose (e.g., checkpoint name or metadata).
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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('checkpoint of the current workspace state'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'checkpoint_restore' or 'checkpoint_list' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit sibling distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active workspace), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'checkpoint_restore' for recovery scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a checkpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkpoint_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't state whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or if there are confirmation prompts. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral details is a significant gap.
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?
The description is extremely concise with just three words ('Delete a checkpoint.'), front-loading the key action and resource. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like safety warnings, return values, error conditions, or how deletion interacts with other tools (e.g., checkpoint_restore). For a mutation tool in this context, more information is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
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 description doesn't mention parameters, but with only one parameter (checkpoint_id) and 0% schema description coverage, it implicitly clarifies that deletion targets a checkpoint by its ID. Since there are zero parameters described in the schema, the baseline is 4, as the description's focus on 'a checkpoint' aligns with the single required parameter without needing explicit parameter details.
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 clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a checkpoint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like checkpoint_create, checkpoint_list, and checkpoint_restore by specifying deletion rather than creation, listing, or restoration. However, it doesn't specify what a checkpoint is in this context, which could help differentiate from other deletion tools like rm or workspace_destroy.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing checkpoint), exclusions (e.g., not for workspaces), or comparisons to similar tools like rm (which might delete files) or workspace_destroy (which deletes workspaces). Without this context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all checkpoints for the current workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, format of returned data, permissions required, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying scope.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a list operation with no structured data on outputs, more information on what is returned would be helpful, but it meets basic requirements.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but this is acceptable as there are no parameters to explain. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('checkpoints'), specifying scope ('for the current workspace'). It distinguishes from siblings like checkpoint_create/delete/restore by focusing on listing rather than modifying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from workspace_list, which might also list workspace-related items.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for listing checkpoints in the current workspace, it doesn't mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like workspace_list or ls that might list other resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Restore workspace to a checkpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Restore' suggests a mutation that may overwrite current workspace state, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., data loss), or rate limits. It lacks details on what 'restore' entails beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic action, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's potential complexity.
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?
Given the tool likely involves workspace restoration (a mutation with potential data implications), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what happens during restore, error conditions, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what the 'request' parameter represents (e.g., checkpoint ID, name, or configuration), its format, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.
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 'Restore workspace to a checkpoint' clearly states the action (restore) and target (workspace to checkpoint), but it's somewhat vague about what 'restore' entails operationally. It distinguishes from siblings like checkpoint_create or checkpoint_delete by focusing on restoration, but lacks specificity on scope or effects compared to workspace_* tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing checkpoint), exclusions, or relationships with siblings like checkpoint_list (to find checkpoints) or workspace_switch (for workspace changes). The description implies usage but offers no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Copy file or directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Copy file or directory,' which implies a read-and-write operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing files, handles errors, or provides feedback. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Copy file or directory.'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with one undocumented parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like parameter format, behavioral details, or output expectations, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the single parameter 'request' is undocumented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'request' should contain (e.g., source and destination paths), leaving parameter usage ambiguous and incomplete.
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 clearly states the verb ('Copy') and resource ('file or directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mv' (move) or 'write' (create/write), which could also involve file operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mv' for moving files or 'write' for creating files. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether source and destination paths must be specified in the request parameter, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find files matching a pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'matching a pattern' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination), or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core purpose. It achieves maximum clarity per word count.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with a file system and has many sibling alternatives.
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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description only vaguely implies the parameter is for a 'pattern' without detailing syntax, format, or examples. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, insufficiently compensating for the low coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('files'), and indicates the action is based on a pattern. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'grep' or 'ls' that might also search or list files, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'grep' or 'ls', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search file contents for a pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., line-by-line matches), or any error conditions, which is insufficient for a tool with potential file system interactions.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that front-loads the essential action. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (searching file contents) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling, nor does it address parameters adequately, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what the 'request' parameter represents (e.g., a regex pattern), its format, or examples, leaving the single required parameter undocumented beyond its name in the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('file contents'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find' (which might search file names) or 'read' (which reads file contents without searching), missing full sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'grep' over 'find' (for content vs. name searches) or 'read' (for direct file access), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List directory contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List directory contents' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what happens with permissions, hidden files, symbolic links, or error conditions. It lacks details on output format, sorting, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is perfectly concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place in communicating the core function efficiently.
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 file system tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'list' means in practice (format, details included), how errors are handled, or differences from similar tools. Given the complexity of file operations and rich sibling toolset, more context would be helpful.
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 description mentions 'directory contents' which implies a path parameter, but doesn't explicitly describe the 'path' parameter or its default value ('.'). With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description adds minimal semantic context beyond what's obvious from the tool name, meeting the baseline for simple tools.
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 'List directory contents' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('directory contents'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'tree' or 'find' which also list directory contents in different ways, but it's specific enough to understand the basic function.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tree' (which shows hierarchical structure), 'find' (which searches), or 'pwd' (which shows current directory). There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create directory' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the directory already exists, or if it's recursive. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding.
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?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, permissions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't mention the 'path' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.
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 'Create directory' clearly states the action (create) and resource (directory), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'workspace_create' or 'checkpoint_create' that might also create directories or similar structures in different contexts.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'workspace_create' for creating workspace directories or 'cp' for copying directories. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing parent directory permissions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Move/rename file or directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| dest | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Move/rename' implies a destructive operation (source is removed), it doesn't specify whether overwrites occur, if permissions are preserved, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about the tool's purpose.
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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral details like overwrite behavior. The description should provide more context given the complexity and lack of structured documentation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'source' and 'dest' implicitly but provides no details about their format (paths, wildcards), semantics (relative vs absolute paths), or constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond what the parameter names already suggest.
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 clearly states the verb ('Move/rename') and resource ('file or directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cp' (copy) or 'rm' (remove), which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'mv' over 'cp' followed by 'rm', or how it differs from workspace operations like 'workspace_mount'. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get current working directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] current working directory,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error conditions, output format, or performance characteristics. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format or behavioral context, which could be helpful for an agent to use it correctly. However, for a simple tool like this, the description meets basic requirements.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.
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 clearly states the specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current working directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cd' (change directory) and 'ls' (list directory contents) by focusing on retrieval of the current location rather than navigation or listing.
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?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'current working directory,' suggesting it should be used to check the present location in the filesystem. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'ls' for listing contents or 'cd' for changing directories, leaving the agent to infer proper usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read file contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read file contents' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what happens with binary files, large files, encoding issues, or error conditions. For a file I/O tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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?
The description is maximally concise at just three words: 'Read file contents.' It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
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 file reading tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what format the content is returned in (text, binary, encoding), how errors are handled, or any limitations. Given the complexity of file I/O operations, this minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the single 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description 'Read file contents' provides no information about the path parameter - whether it's absolute or relative, what formats are accepted, or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 'Read file contents' clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('file contents'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'grep' or 'find' that also involve reading files, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'grep' (search file contents), 'find' (locate files), and 'ls' (list files), there's no indication of when 'read' is the appropriate choice versus these other file-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Remove file or directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| recursive | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'remove' but does not clarify if deletions are permanent, reversible, or require specific permissions. It mentions 'file or directory' but omits details on the 'recursive' parameter's effect or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It fails to address critical aspects like safety warnings, return values, or error conditions, making it incomplete for safe and effective use in a complex environment with siblings like workspace management tools.
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 description implies a 'path' parameter by referencing 'file or directory' and hints at directory handling that relates to 'recursive', but with 0% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the target types, but leaves parameters like 'recursive' and exact path syntax undocumented.
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 'Remove file or directory' clearly states the action (remove) and target (file or directory), making the purpose immediately understandable. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'mv' (move) or 'cp' (copy), but it is specific enough to avoid vagueness or tautology.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mv' for moving files or 'workspace_destroy' for broader deletions. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied from the tool name and basic functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Display directory tree structure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . | |
| max_depth | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output 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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick understanding.
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?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output details, which are essential for effective tool use. The simplicity of the tool somewhat mitigates this, but key information is missing.
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 description adds no information about parameters beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (path and max_depth), the description fails to explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the tree display, leaving significant gaps.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('display') and resource ('directory tree structure'), making it immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'ls' or 'find', but the focus on tree structure is reasonably distinct.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ls' for listing or 'find' for searching. It lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new virtual filesystem workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new virtual filesystem workspace' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the workspace is persistent, if there are size limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is extremely concise at just 7 words in a single sentence. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about what the tool does.
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 creation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 1 undocumented parameter, the description is insufficiently complete. It states what the tool does at a high level but provides no guidance on usage, parameter requirements, behavioral expectations, or results. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single 'request' parameter, and the tool description provides no information about what this parameter should contain. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving the agent completely in the dark about what format or content the 'request' parameter expects for workspace creation.
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 clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('new virtual filesystem workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like workspace_destroy, workspace_info, and workspace_list by specifying creation rather than other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'mkdir' which also creates something in the filesystem context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose workspace_create over mkdir (which creates directories), what prerequisites might be needed, or what happens after creation. The agent must infer usage from the name alone without contextual help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Destroy a workspace and clean up all resources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'destroy' and 'clean up all resources,' implying a destructive, irreversible operation, but doesn't detail what 'clean up' entails (e.g., deletion of files, unmounting, resource release), potential side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a high-stakes mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('destroy a workspace') and adds clarifying scope ('clean up all resources'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the tool's high complexity (destructive operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like return values, error handling, safety warnings, or parameter details, leaving the agent under-informed for proper invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('name') undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about this parameter, such as what 'name' refers to (e.g., workspace identifier, path), format, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
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 clearly states the verb ('destroy') and resource ('workspace'), and specifies the scope ('clean up all resources'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'workspace_delete' (if it existed) or 'rm', though 'clean up all resources' hints at broader destruction than simple deletion.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rm' (for files) or 'workspace_unmount' (for detachment). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the workspace must be empty or unmounted first, or warnings about irreversible effects, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed information about a workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get detailed information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., metadata, permissions, status), whether it requires authentication, if there are rate limits, or what happens if the workspace doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point: 'Get detailed information about a workspace.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, uses clear language, and avoids unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
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?
Given the complexity of a workspace information tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (0% coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, how to interpret the 'name' parameter, or what the return value looks like. For a tool that likely provides structured data about workspaces, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 input schema has one parameter ('name') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about this parameter. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., workspace identifier, path), its format, or if it's required. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like workspace_create, workspace_destroy, and workspace_list by focusing on retrieving information rather than creating, deleting, or listing workspaces. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'read' or other information-retrieval tools in the sibling list.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for getting metadata about a specific workspace) or when not to use it (e.g., use workspace_list for enumerating workspaces). With many sibling tools like workspace_list, read, and ls that might overlap in functionality, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about the optimal choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all workspaces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all workspaces,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'all' means (e.g., accessible workspaces, all existing workspaces), whether there are pagination limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description 'List all workspaces' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., workspace names, IDs, statuses), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., only lists workspaces the user has access to). For a listing tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior and results.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional value is required here, and the description doesn't introduce any confusion about parameters.
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 'List all workspaces' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like workspace_create or workspace_destroy by specifying a read-only listing operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from workspace_info, which might provide detailed information about a specific workspace, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use workspace_list versus workspace_info (for detailed info on a single workspace) or workspace_mount/unmount (for managing workspace access). There's no context about prerequisites, such as whether the user needs to be in a specific workspace or have certain permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Mount workspace via FUSE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It states 'Mount workspace via FUSE' but doesn't disclose what mounting entails (e.g., file system access, persistence, permissions), potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves system-level operations.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Mount workspace via FUSE.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the complexity of a FUSE mounting operation, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and error handling, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the single required parameter 'request'. It doesn't explain what 'request' should contain (e.g., workspace ID, mount path, options), leaving the parameter's meaning and format completely undocumented.
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 clearly states the action ('Mount') and resource ('workspace via FUSE'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like workspace_create or workspace_destroy by specifying the mounting operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with workspace_unmount.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workspace created first), when mounting is appropriate, or how it differs from workspace_switch or other workspace-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Switch to a different workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Switch to a different workspace' implies a state change but doesn't clarify what happens during the switch (e.g., does it affect current operations, require specific permissions, or have side effects like unmounting resources?). It lacks details on success/failure responses, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and structure.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a state-changing operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meaning, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'name' parameter. It doesn't explain what the name refers to (e.g., an existing workspace identifier), its format, or examples, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 clearly states the action ('switch') and target ('to a different workspace'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like workspace_create or workspace_mount, which would require more specific context about what 'switching' entails versus creating or mounting workspaces.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workspace_list (to see available workspaces) or workspace_create (to make a new one). There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workspace name) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Unmount workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Unmount workspace' implies a mutation operation that likely changes state, but it does not explain what unmounting does (e.g., disconnecting a workspace from a filesystem, freeing resources), whether it's reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects. This lack of detail makes it inadequate for a tool with potential destructive implications.
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?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'Unmount workspace,' which is front-loaded and wastes no space. While this brevity contributes to under-specification, it scores highly on conciseness as every word serves a purpose, albeit insufficiently.
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?
Given the complexity of a workspace operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters adequately, failing to provide the necessary context for an AI agent to use it correctly.
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 input schema has one parameter ('name') with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the description adds no information about parameters—it does not mention 'name' or explain what it represents (e.g., workspace identifier). This leaves the parameter undocumented and fails to bridge the coverage gap.
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 'Unmount workspace' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'workspace_unmount' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('unmount') and resource ('workspace'), but lacks any detail about what unmounting entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'workspace_destroy' or 'workspace_switch', making it vague and minimally informative.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to workspaces (e.g., 'workspace_destroy', 'workspace_switch', 'workspace_mount'), but the description fails to specify scenarios for unmounting, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Write content to file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Write content to file' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether it overwrites or appends, what happens with non-existent files, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a file system mutation tool, this leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.
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?
The description is maximally concise at just four words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place in communicating the core functionality.
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 file system write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like file creation behavior, overwrite policies, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how to use this tool effectively.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and a single undocumented parameter named 'request', the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool's general purpose. It doesn't explain what 'request' should contain (file path? content? both?), what format it expects, or how the parameter relates to the writing operation.
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 'Write content to file' clearly states the action (write) and target resource (file), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'read' tool beyond the basic verb difference, missing opportunity to clarify this is for output rather than input operations.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cp' (copy) or 'mv' (move), nor does it mention prerequisites like file existence or permissions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
cdcheckpoint_createcheckpoint_deletecheckpoint_listcheckpoint_restorecpfindgreplsmkdirmvpwdreadrmtreeworkspace_createworkspace_destroyworkspace_infoworkspace_listworkspace_mountworkspace_switchworkspace_unmountwriteScored across 23 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity, covering specific filesystem operations, workspace management, or checkpoint functions. For example, 'ls' lists directory contents while 'tree' shows a tree structure, and 'workspace_create' creates a workspace versus 'workspace_switch' changes the active one. The descriptions reinforce these distinctions, making misselection unlikely.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as 'checkpoint_create', 'workspace_list', and 'mkdir'. All tools use snake_case with clear, descriptive verbs aligned with their functions, like 'read', 'write', 'find', and 'grep'. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and readable.
With 23 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a virtual filesystem server that aims to provide comprehensive file and workspace management. It covers core operations (e.g., read, write, ls), advanced features (e.g., checkpoints, workspaces), and utilities (e.g., grep, find), though it might feel heavy compared to simpler servers. Each tool appears to earn its place without obvious redundancy.
The tool surface is complete for the virtual filesystem domain, offering full CRUD and lifecycle coverage for files, directories, workspaces, and checkpoints. It includes creation (mkdir, workspace_create), reading (read, ls), updating (write, mv), deletion (rm, workspace_destroy), and management operations (e.g., checkpoint_restore, workspace_switch), with no apparent gaps that would cause agent failures in typical workflows.
Manage files and folders directly from your workspace. Read and write files, list directories, cre…
Securely search and manage workspace context files for AI agents and teams.
Cross-agent artifact workspace with provenance across Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, LangGraph.
Artifact store for AI agents — read, write, and search files by path; share by rendered URL.
