worlds_get_cli_workflowFind one provider-specific workflow and its recorded command steps without translating flags between providers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | ||
| workflow | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | ||
| sources | Yes | ||
| commands | Yes | ||
| workflow | Yes | ||
| guide_url | Yes | ||
| reference_url | Yes | ||
| release_version | Yes | ||
| interactive_commands | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool returns recorded command steps and does not translate flags between providers. This is consistent with the annotations and no contradiction is present.
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, tightly worded sentence (13 words) that immediately states the action and key differentiator. No filler or redundancy.
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 the tool's simplicity, the output schema, and annotations, the description adequately covers the core purpose and the distinguishing 'without translating' behavior. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly naming the parameters or mentioning when to use this over get_cli_command, but overall it is sufficient.
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 0%. The description does not explain the `product` or `workflow` parameters, only indirectly referencing 'provider-specific'. The schema's enum for product is helpful, but the workflow parameter remains underdescribed. The description should compensate for the lack of schema descriptions but does not.
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 the action (find), the resource (one provider-specific workflow), and the specific output (recorded command steps). It distinguishes from siblings like worlds_compare_cli_workflows (compare multiple) and worlds_get_cli_command (single command) by focusing on a full workflow without translation.
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 phrase 'without translating flags between providers' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need the original provider-specific commands, not a translated version. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool list implies the comparison tool is for cross-provider needs.
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 distinct resource types (commands, configurations, workflows, models, versions, documents, catalogs), but some boundary overlap exists: 'worlds_advise_hard_problem' and 'worlds_plan_cli_work' both select model/effort pairings, and 'worlds_search_cli_reference' vs 'worlds_search_knowledge' both touch workflow content. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent might occasionally hesitate between these pairs.
All tools share the 'worlds_' prefix and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: advise, compare, get, list, plan, search. Minor pluralization differences (workflows vs workflow) are negligible and do not break the pattern.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for a knowledge server covering three CLIs. Each tool serves a distinct retrieval, search, or planning need without feeling bloated or insufficient.
The server provides thorough read-only coverage: searching manuals and reference, retrieving specific commands/configurations/workflows/documents, listing catalogs/models/versions, comparing workflows, and planning/advising. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends within its stated purpose.