list_workflowsList the caller's saved workflows with their parameters and per-run credit estimates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rationale | No | Optional short label (≤300 chars) for the map edit history, e.g. "add wildfire layer". Omit it to send nothing beyond the tool arguments. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / rationale / descriptionPrevious value: -"Short audit-log label (≤300 chars) stating the user-facing goal this call serves, e.g. \"add wildfire layer for the user's California query\". Required on every call. Stored in the operations log so map edits stay traceable — we never see your chat history."New value: +"Optional short label (≤300 chars) for the map edit history, e.g. \"add wildfire layer\". Omit it to send nothing beyond the tool arguments."Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "rationale"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope and return content ('caller's saved workflows', 'parameters and per-run credit estimates'), but does not address pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements.
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 no filler. Every element — verb, scope, returned data — earns its place.
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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns ('parameters and per-run credit estimates') and who scopes it ('caller's saved'). Missing pagination or limit behavior is a minor gap for this complexity level.
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 100% for the single optional rationale parameter, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what is already documented.
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 (list saved workflows) and adds the returned data shape (parameters and per-run credit estimates). This clearly separates it from run_workflow and save_workflow without needing schema inspection.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose: an agent should call this when it needs to inspect saved workflows. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over run_workflow or save_workflow, leaving alternative routing to inference.
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.