plith

rigor_workflows

Read-onlyIdempotent

List and search Rigor workflows for your organization, with filtering and pagination. Returns status, progress, capacity usage, and available actions per workflow. Use to monitor workflow state, understand concurrent limit usage, identify stuck or completed workflows, and — via q — find prior work on a subject before commissioning it again. Pair a q hit with rigor_status to read that workflow's deliverable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Search the workflow title and task description. Every whitespace-separated term must appear in one or the other, as a case-insensitive substring — so "vector search postgres" matches a task described as "add vector search to an existing Postgres-backed SaaS app". Substring matching, not full-text: there is no stemming and no ranking, so "migrating" does not match "migration". Max 200 characters and 8 terms; punctuation is treated as a separator and wildcards are not supported.
`limit`	No	Page size (default 20, max 100)
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor (created_at timestamp from previous page)
`status`	No	Filter by status (comma-separated). Valid values: executing, step_executing, completed, failed, halted, pending_approval, cancelled. E.g. "halted,failed,pending_approval"
`folder_id`	No	Filter by folder ID. Pass "unassigned" for workflows in no folder
`task_type`	No	Filter by classified task type
`created_after`	No	ISO timestamp — only workflows created after this time
`created_before`	No	ISO timestamp — only workflows created before this time
`counts_toward_limit`	No	Filter to workflows counting toward the concurrent limit

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`workflows`	No
`pagination`	No
`credits_remaining`	No
`concurrent_summary`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that it lists and searches workflows, returns per-workflow status/progress/capacity usage/available actions, and supports filtering/pagination. It also reveals the tool surfaces data that could be used to infer concurrency limits and find prior work, which is useful context. It does not claim any side effects and does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a compact paragraph that front-loads the core function, then lists returned data, then gives use cases, then a sibling-routing tip. Every sentence contributes either scope, use-case, or navigation guidance. There is no repetition of schema details and no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a read-only list/search operation with an output schema, full parameter docs, and strong annotations. The description covers why the tool exists, what it returns, and how to route to rigor_status. There is no missing information needed for an agent to select and invoke it safely and correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented well, especially q which has a detailed substring-matching explanation. The description adds meaning by framing the q parameter's practical purpose (find prior work on a subject before commissioning it again) and framing the tool's overall filtering/pagination behavior. It also highlights status as a filter relevant to identifying stuck workflows, which complements the schema's parameter list.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (list/search), a specific resource (Rigor workflows), and enumerates the returned fields (status, progress, capacity usage, available actions) plus pagination and filtering. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like rigor_status by positioning itself as the workflow-level discovery tool and telling the agent to pair a q hit with rigor_status for deliverable reads, and differs from rigor_execute/rigor_plan which create/run workflows.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states explicit use cases: monitor workflow state, understand concurrent limit usage, identify stuck/completed workflows, and find prior work via q before commissioning it again. It gives a concrete routing rule: pair a q hit with rigor_status to read the deliverable. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the openWorldHint:false and the clear scope make the guidance strong and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All plith tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, grouped by functionality (cost, dedup, guardrails, pitfalls, quality, rigor). Descriptions clearly differentiate within groups, so an agent can reliably select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase with underscores, using category prefix (burnrate_, dedupq_, guardrail_, etc.) followed by a descriptive verb or noun. No naming mix-ups.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools cover multiple distinct capabilities (cost management, deduplication, guardrails, pitfalls, quality, workflows) without being excessive. Each tool has a clear role, and the count is appropriate for the server's scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows well, but there are minor gaps: no tool to delete/update guardrail policies, no explicit qualitygate rule management, and no workflow cancellation tool. Also, 'qualitygate_trends' is referenced but not provided as a tool. Overall, agents can work around these gaps.

Resources

Need Help?