list_workflowsThe playbook library: how bid professionals actually run this work, from the weekly scan through qualification, eligibility screening, reading a specification, clarification questions, and the proposal skeleton. READ A WORKFLOW BEFORE IMPROVISING A PROCESS. Pass persona='consultant' to see the multi-client ones. Follow with get_workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| persona | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior (persona affects which workflows appear) and a procedural warning, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, or any error/edge-case behavior.
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?
Three short sentences: the first explains what the library contains, the second gives a high-priority instruction, and the third covers filtering and the follow-up call. Every sentence 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 one-parameter listing tool, the description covers scope, filtering, and next-step routing. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit return-format or output details, which would help an agent consume the results; with no output schema, that burden falls on the description.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the persona parameter's effect with a concrete example ('Pass persona='consultant' to see the multi-client ones'). It doesn't enumerate all valid persona values, but for a single optional parameter this is meaningful guidance.
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 title and description clearly identify this as a listing tool for available playbooks/workflows, and the description enumerates the workflow stages it covers. It also distinguishes itself from get_workflow by directing the agent to follow up with that tool.
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 description gives explicit timing guidance ('READ A WORKFLOW BEFORE IMPROVISING A PROCESS') and tells the agent to chain it with get_workflow. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus other sibling tools, but the intended call sequence is clear.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: authentication phases (connect_start/connect_verify), search (search_opportunities), detail retrieval (get_opportunity), workflow navigation (list_workflows/get_workflow), and account status (whoami). No two tools overlap in what they return or the action they perform.
Most names follow a clear lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_opportunity, get_workflow, list_workflows, search_opportunities. The connect_* pair reverses the expected verb order (connect_start rather than start_connect), and whoami is an out-of-pattern Unix-style command, but overall the naming is predictable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: two for authentication, two for searching/viewing opportunities, two for workflow guidance, and one for account state. Every tool has a clear job and none feel redundant.
The core surface covers authentication, searching, opportunity details, and workflow guidance. However, both search_opportunities and get_opportunity explicitly direct the agent to read_document for document contents, and no such tool is present in the set, creating a notable dead end for eligibility text and tender documents.