toolforte

List saved workflows

workflow_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the workflows saved to the ToolForte account this API key belongs to. A workflow runs several ToolForte tools in order, passing each one the output of an earlier step, so it does a whole job in one call instead of you orchestrating the steps yourself. Returns each workflow's id, the inputs it expects, the steps it runs and what a run costs. Call this first: workflow_run needs an id from here. Requires an API key, because a workflow belongs to an account. Get a free key at https://toolforte.com/developers and send it on the MCP connection as the header Authorization: Bearer tf_...

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many to return, newest first.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Number of items
`result`	No	The result, when it is not an object
`workflows`	No	The workflows on the account

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of items",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "The result, when it is not an object"
+    },
+    "workflows": {
+      "description": "The workflows on the account",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds auth requirements ('Requires an API key', header format), account scoping, and what the response includes (id, inputs, steps, cost). This is valuable behavioral context that annotations do not cover.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence earns its place: workflow context, return contents, call ordering, and auth setup. It is detailed without being bloated.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, an output schema, and safety-related annotations. The description fully covers scope, auth, return value, and how it relates to workflow_run, leaving no practical gap for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'limit' is fully documented with default, minimum, maximum, and behavior ('newest first'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the workflows saved to the ToolForte account this API key belongs to.' It also distinguishes this tool from its main sibling by naming workflow_run as the downstream consumer.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Call this first: workflow_run needs an id from here.' This provides clear sequencing guidance and makes the relationship to the sibling tool unambiguous.

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

All toolforte tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource or action, and the detailed descriptions clearly separate near neighbors like generate_test_bsn versus generate_brp_test_data, read_page versus url_screenshot versus url_to_pdf, and image_compress/convert/resize. Even with 40 tools, there is no real boundary-blurring overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the set mixes conventions: verb_noun (generate_*, validate_*), noun_verb (pdf_merge, image_resize), conversion-style names (csv_to_json, html_to_pdf), and bare nouns (base64, qr_code_png). The groups are recognizable, but there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

Forty tools is an oversized surface for an agent to consider on every call, well above the point where tool selection cost starts to hurt. The broad purpose explains the count, but many one-off utilities could be grouped or exposed selectively.

Completeness3/5

The server covers many domains—encoding, Dutch test data, image/PDF handling, memory, and workflows—but several categories are partial: there are no reverse conversions like json_to_csv or html_to_markdown, no PDF text extraction, and no workflow create/update/delete tools. Agents can work around some gaps, but notable operations are missing.

Resources

Need Help?