Get all edges/connections from a workflow
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"workflowId": "<workflowId>"
},
"name": "workflow_get_edges"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflowId | Yes | The workflow ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether all edges are returned unpaginated, what an edge contains, or what happens for an unknown workflowId. For a simple read tool this is thin but not wrong.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the 'edges/connections' gloss does real work. It is arguably undersized for a tool with an undocumented return shape, but nothing is wasted.
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?
The tool is simple: one fully documented required parameter and no output schema. However, with no output schema the description should hint at the return shape (list of edges with source/target, or empty result), and it does not. Adequate but leaves a real gap.
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?
Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('The workflow ID'), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no meaning about the ID's format or scope, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get all edges/connections from a workflow', and even disambiguates 'edges' with the synonym 'connections'. An agent can distinguish it from workflow_add_edge, workflow_delete_edge, and workflow_get_node without opening a schema, though it never names a sibling 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as workflow_get (full definition) or workflow_get_node for inspecting topology. The agent must infer that this is the read path for a workflow's edge set.
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.