list_workflowsThe workflows in this project, what they do, when they next run, and how the last run went. Call it when the user asks what is running on its own.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_workflows"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return-content context—next run time and last run outcome—which matters because there is no output schema, though it does not discuss pagination or project-resolution behavior.
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 with the resource and return contents front-loaded, followed by the usage trigger. There is no redundant or filler text.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives enough to select and invoke it. It still leaves minor gaps around whether inactive workflows are included and how results are ordered or paginated.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.
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?
The description names the resource (workflows in this project) and specifies the returned details: what they do, next run, and last run. It distinguishes the plural overview from the singular get_workflow only implicitly through the list framing, not by naming the 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?
It gives a clear trigger: call it when the user asks what is running on its own. It does not state when not to use it or name get_workflow as the detail-oriented alternative.
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.