Processes discovered deterministically from an object-centric event log derived from the dated rows of the exports (and any event log they include): one per central object type, with case count and happy-path share. Use get_process for the full flow. On a map larger than one call reads, the list is cut and says so: truncated is true and truncated_note explains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: processes are discovered deterministically from exports, and the list can be truncated with 'truncated is true and truncated_note explains.' This directly addresses a real failure mode (silent truncation). It does not contradict annotations. It could say more about ordering or count limits, hence not a 5.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and the truncation behavior is clearly stated at the end. However, the first sentence is overloaded with parenthetical and domain-specific detail ('object-centric event log derived from the dated rows of the exports (and any event log they include)'), making it harder to scan than necessary.
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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, granularity, the sibling alternative, and the truncation behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could more explicitly state what the returned fields are (case count, happy-path share are mentioned but not fully enumerated).
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds that no parameters filter the results and that completeness depends on map size, which is meaningful context for a no-param list tool.
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 states a specific resource ('processes discovered deterministically from an object-centric event log') and clarifies granularity ('one per central object type'). It distinguishes from the sibling get_process by noting the latter is for the 'full flow'. However, the opening is dense with domain jargon and does not name the verb as cleanly as a 5 would.
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?
It explicitly points to the alternative: 'Use get_process for the full flow.' That is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-sibling cue. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
