list-workflow-catalogList supported TestChimp workflows with Active / Disabled / Missing Config status for the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| botId | No | QA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding. | |
| projectApiKey | No | QA bots: your own project API key from your stored TestChimp binding. Required on every call except get-bot-credentials, get-project-credentials and get-bot-compat. Never print it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / botIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "QA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.",
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / projectApiKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "QA bots: your own project API key from your stored TestChimp binding. Required on every call except get-bot-credentials, get-project-credentials and get-bot-compat. Never print it.",
+ "maxLength": 256,
+ "minLength": 8,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the status taxonomy (Active / Disabled / Missing Config) which is useful behavioral context, but does not describe auth, pagination, or result ordering.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence with the resource and scoping front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.
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 simple read-only catalog listing, annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents parameters. The main omission is routing guidance relative to the workflow-execution siblings, but the description is otherwise sufficient.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both botId and projectApiKey (including the API key usage rules) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('TestChimp workflows') with the added scope of status values (Active / Disabled / Missing Config) for the project. It is distinguishable from list-workflow-executions in intent, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as list-workflow-executions or get-workflow-execution. Usage is only implied by the catalog nature of the resource, with no conditions or exclusions stated.
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.