Check who you work for, your current work, pending items, and recent changes in a workspace without writing anything.
Start here: who you work for, your wirk, what waits, and recent changes. Writes nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | One line about your task; items that matter for it are listed. | |
| format | No | ||
| max_bytes | No | ||
| workspace_id | No | Wirkspace ID, full or short; omit for your only one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.16Input schema / properties / format / descriptionRemoved value: -"text (default) or json."Input schema / properties / task / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional one line about your task; the items that matter for it are listed."New value: +"One line about your task; items that matter for it are listed."v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
'Writes nothing' merely restates the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, earning no additional credit. Nothing is said about output size behavior despite a max_bytes parameter, nor about how 'recent changes' are scoped (time window, workspace boundary). With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description adds essentially no new behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with 'Start here' so the agent gets the routing cue immediately. 'Writes nothing' is a wasted clause given the annotations already say so, but overall the text is tight.
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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description gives an adequate sketch of the returned sections. It still leaves format vs. default text output, max_bytes truncation behavior, and the meaning of 'recent' unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% and the description mentions no parameters at all — task, workspace_id, format and max_bytes are entirely undocumented in prose. The relevance-filtering behavior of 'task' is useful but lives only in the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the uncovered max_bytes and format 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 enumerates what the tool returns — 'who you work for, your wirk, what waits, and recent changes' — which reads as an orientation/dashboard summary rather than a query or write. 'Start here' establishes it as the entry point relative to siblings like wirk_query and wirk_show, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Start here' is real ordering guidance: call this first. But there is no statement of when to prefer wirk_query, wirk_review or wirk_show afterwards, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by sequencing only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.