Get a single invocation by ID, including status, output, error, stderr, and duration. Use this to poll an async invocation (invoke_workflow with invoke_mode=async returns an invocation_id) until status is 'completed', 'failed', 'timeout', or 'oom_killed'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invocation_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the returned data, the polling relationship to async invocations, and the terminal statuses to watch for. It does not cover edge cases like missing IDs or non-terminal response behavior, but the core behavior is transparent for a simple getter.
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 no filler. The first sentence states the core action and return fields, and the second gives a precise usage scenario with terminal status values. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete. It enumerates return fields, explains the async polling use case, and lists statuses. It does not describe not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap for such a focused tool.
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?
The input schema only defines invocation_id as a string with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining the ID comes from invoke_workflow when using invoke_mode=async, adding practical context beyond the schema. Format details are not provided, but the dependency is clear.
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 clearly states the tool fetches a single invocation by ID and lists the returned fields (status, output, error, stderr, duration). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_workflow or get_logs without ambiguity.
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?
The description explicitly says to use this tool for polling an async invocation and identifies that invoke_workflow with invoke_mode=async returns the invocation_id. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the single-invocation scope makes the intended context clear.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: workflow lifecycle, invocation, logging, metrics, KV store, secrets, connections, and documentation. Even similar tools like get_logs vs get_invocation are well-differentiated by descriptions.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_workflow, get_workflow, list_workflows). The KV tools (kv_get, kv_set, kv_list, kv_delete) are internally consistent but deviate from the dominant verb_noun style by using a noun_verb prefix.
With 18 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the broad platform scope (workflow management, invocation, logging, metrics, KV, secrets, connections, docs) justifies each tool's existence. No tool feels redundant.
Workflows have create, read, update (via update_draft), list, and publish, but lack a delete operation. Secrets support create and list but no delete/update, and connections only have list. These lifecycle gaps create potential dead ends for agents.
