invoke_get_workspace_contextWorkspace role, readiness, plan, account/post counts, and capabilities. Pass workspace_id when more than one workspace exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | No | Optional client correlation id echoed back for tracing. | |
| workspace_id | No | Required when multiple workspaces exist. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds some context by listing what data it returns, but it does not disclose things like role/permission requirements, error behavior, or what happens if workspace_id is omitted when multiple workspaces exist.
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 concise sentences, no filler, and the core resource/content is placed first. The key operational hint about workspace_id is mentioned in the second sentence without overshadowing 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 simple read-only getter, the description adequately covers the returned concept areas and the one important parameter condition. It lacks explicit behavior for omitted workspace_id and does not describe the response shape, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.
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 100%, so the parameters are already documented: request_id is an optional correlation id and workspace_id is required when multiple workspaces exist. The description repeats the workspace_id guidance without adding deeper semantics about format, defaults, or behavior.
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 identifies 'get workspace context' as a read of workspace-level data: role, readiness, plan, counts, and capabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling getters like get_post and get_user_profile, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to separate it from.
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 only usage guidance is 'Pass workspace_id when more than one workspace exists,' which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not describe when to prefer this tool over related siblings like invoke_list_user_workspaces or invoke_get_brand_profile, so the broader selection context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and lifecycle state, so an agent can usually pick correctly. The main ambiguity is among the profile/context tools and the approve/schedule/publish family, but the descriptions give enough state-specific detail to avoid serious misselection.
The set consistently uses an invoke_ prefix with snake_case and mostly follows a verb_noun pattern. It only deviates with names like media_preflight and x_live_read, which place the verb at the end or use noun phrases.
With 33 tools, the server is well beyond the typical well-scoped range. It covers many distinct areas, but the high number of status-specific post tools and separate context/profile/workspace tools makes the surface feel bloated rather than cohesive.
The core social publishing workflow is covered well: create, edit, approve, schedule, publish, cancel, retry, and campaign planning. However, there are notable gaps such as no delete/archive for drafts, campaigns, or assets, and limited tools for inbox, comment, or broader analytics beyond the single X read gateway.