Skip to main content
Glama

Oi

by io.github.carhaix

List Workflows

oi.workflows.list
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the Oi workflows available to this organization. Use this when the user asks what workflows exist or says oi workflow/wf without enough task detail to select one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoAlias for query. Optional text filter for narrowing workflows.
queryNoOptional text filter for narrowing workflows by workflow id, name, description, audience, best-fit use case, or tags.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workflowsYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds useful context that results are scoped to the organization, but it does not cover output ordering, pagination, or other runtime behavior. This matches the expected baseline when annotations carry the safety profile.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and scope, then immediately gives actionable usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with no required parameters, complete schema descriptions, safety annotations, and an output schema, this description provides sufficient context. An agent can select and invoke it correctly without missing critical information.

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%, and both parameters (text and query) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema already documents them adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('Oi workflows available to this organization'). It distinguishes this list tool from related workflow tools like get/use/start-session by focusing on enumeration rather than selection or execution.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: when the user asks what workflows exist or mentions 'oi workflow/wf' without enough task detail. It implies that with sufficient task detail a more specific tool should be used, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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

All Oi toolsInspect
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Resource prefixes (contexts, skills, guardrails, workflows, connections) make most tools clearly distinct, and parallel lifecycle verbs are scoped by resource name. The main ambiguity is within the guardrails publish/release/unpublish lifecycle and between brain.save-feedback, contexts.save-draft-feedback, and the two report tools, though detailed descriptions mostly resolve it.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools overwhelmingly follow an oi.<resource>.<verb> snake_case pattern, with create/get/list/update/use repeated consistently across resource types. Deviations include resource-less oi.recommend, noun-style oi.auth.whoami, and inconsistent release handling (separate guardrails.release vs action=release on contexts/skills update).

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is too many for a single server, mainly because the same lifecycle pattern is repeated across Contexts, Skills, Guardrails, and Workflows. Each tool may be individually justifiable, but the set feels bloated and could benefit from consolidation or splitting into per-resource servers.

Completeness3/5

CRUD coverage is uneven: Guardrails have create/update/delete/list/get plus publish/unpublish/release, while Contexts, Skills, and Workflows lack any delete or archive tool, and Brain has only save-feedback with no read/update/delete path. Connections and auth are read/use-only, which may be intentional but leaves management actions absent.

Resources