Croncool Cron Jobs

List durable workflows

list_workflows

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants to list durable workflow definitions and run-count summaries for one CronCool project. Returns each workflow's name, run counts by status and last run time for one project, 50 by default and 100 at most. Not for individual runs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "list_workflows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many workflows to return, from 1 to 100; defaults to 50
`projectId`	Yes	Project id

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hasMore`	Yes	True when the project has more workflows than returned
`workflows`	Yes	Run counts per workflow. Workflow inputs, outputs, error messages, callback configuration and secrets are excluded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 27, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Previous value: -"Maximum number of workflows to return (default 50, max 100)"New value: +"How many workflows to return, from 1 to 100; defaults to 50"

changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description

Previous value: -"Project id whose workflows should be listed (required)"New value: +"Project id"

addedOutput schema / properties / hasMore / description

Added value: +"True when the project has more workflows than returned"

addedOutput schema / properties / workflows / description

Added value: +"Run counts per workflow. Workflow inputs, outputs, error messages, callback configuration and secrets are excluded."

First observedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the exact return contents (name, run counts by status, last run time) and the pagination envelope (50 default, 100 max), which is useful for an agent. It stops short of auth or rate-limit context, so 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the use case, followed by scope/return behavior and then the exclusion. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, project scope, return summary, limit envelope, and an explicit exclusion, which is enough for a low-complexity list tool with only two parameters. Since an output schema exists, the description's recounting of return fields is mildly redundant, keeping it from a full 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's '50 by default and 100 at most' simply restates the limit constraint already in the schema and adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('list durable workflow definitions and run-count summaries') plus the scoping constraint ('for one CronCool project'). The closing exclusion 'Not for individual runs' cleanly separates it from list_workflow_runs and get_workflow_run without needing the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear when-to-use trigger ('when the user wants to list durable workflow definitions and run-count summaries') and a when-not ('Not for individual runs'). The alternative tool for runs is only implied, not named, so it falls short of the explicit routing seen in the best examples.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Croncool Cron Jobs tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?