List pending workflow actions awaiting approval (draft quotes, invoices, review requests, SMS). These are auto-generated by the workflow engine and need manual review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results. Defaults to 20. | |
| status | No | Filter by status. Defaults to pending. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| actions | No | Array of draft action objects |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds value by explaining that actions are 'auto-generated by the workflow engine' and require manual review, providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 with no waste. First sentence captures purpose and resource, second adds necessary context about origin and need for review. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 that an output schema exists, description adequately covers purpose and context. Could mention ordering or pagination but not essential for a simple list tool with limit parameter.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what schema provides; both 'limit' and 'status' are well-documented in the schema with defaults and enums.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'pending workflow actions', provides concrete examples (draft quotes, invoices, review requests, SMS), and distinguishes from sibling tools like workflows.approve_action and workflows.reject_action by indicating these are actions needing approval.
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?
Explicitly states actions are 'awaiting approval' and 'need manual review', implying when to use. Lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with other list tools, but context is clear enough.
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 have distinct resource+action naming (e.g., leads.create, jobs.list), but some overlap exists in analytics tools (dashboard, detailed, financials) and workflow automations (process_lead vs google_ads_pipeline). Descriptions clarify purposes, so slight confusion is possible but limited.
All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern (e.g., leads.create, billing.status). No mixing of camelCase or snake_case. Even complex names like lifecycle.assess or scaling.readiness_score adhere to the convention.
95 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). While the server aims to cover an entire business management platform, this volume is overwhelming for an agent, making selection and memory difficult.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering formation, hiring, compliance, funding, leads, quotes, jobs, invoicing, payments, marketing, analytics, integrations, webhooks, workflows, and more. Almost no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of running a trade business.