Read recent workflow executions: trigger, status, BaseScan tx hash, gas, timing. Without workflowId returns the user's most recent across all workflows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| workflowId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses basic behavior (read operation, returns recent executions, default behavior without workflowId) but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or side effects. For a read tool, this is insufficiently transparent.
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?
Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the core functionality and key behavioral nuance.
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 no output schema and simple tool with 2 params, description covers purpose, return fields, and a key behavioral detail. Missing explanation of limit's effect and potential pagination, but overall nearly complete.
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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning by explaining workflowId's optionality and fallback behavior, but does not elaborate on the limit parameter beyond its default value. Provides partial compensation.
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?
Description clearly states 'Read recent workflow executions' and lists specific fields (trigger, status, BaseScan tx hash, gas, timing). It also explains behavior without workflowId, making it distinct from sibling tools like ctrl_create_workflow or ctrl_fire_manual.
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?
Description implies usage for reading execution logs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like ctrl_get_block_catalog or ctrl_get_vault_status. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.
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 targets a distinct operation: vault activation, workflow creation, manual firing, catalog retrieval, log reading, and vault status. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities.
All tools follow a consistent 'ctrl_verb' pattern (e.g., ctrl_activate, ctrl_create_workflow), making it easy to infer functionality from the name.
6 tools cover the essential operations for a workflow automation server without being excessive or sparse. The scope is well-defined.
The set covers core workflows (create, activate, trigger, monitor) but lacks explicit update/delete for workflows or vaults. This is a minor gap that can be worked around.