List past invocations for a workflow (status, output, error, stderr, duration, mode). Use get_invocation for the full record of a single run by ID. Note: streamed debug logs (console.log/print) are live-only and not stored here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| end_time | No | ||
| snippet_id | No | Deprecated alias for workflow_id. | |
| start_time | No | ||
| workflow_id | Yes | Workflow ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides useful context about the tool being a historical listing and adds a valuable caveat that streamed debug logs are live-only and not stored here. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, limits, filtering behavior, or any side-effect warnings. It gives some behavioral detail beyond the raw schema but not comprehensive coverage.
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?
The description is only two sentences and each earns its place: the first states the action and result fields, and the second provides routing to get_invocation and an important caveat about streamed debug logs. It is front-loaded and free of filler.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 29% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly in all cases. Key parameter semantics for env, limit, status, start_time, end_time, and snippet_id are missing, and the return structure is only partially inferred from the parenthetical field list.
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 only 29%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It clarifies that workflow is the scope and mentions returned fields like status, output, error, stderr, duration, and mode, but it does not explain env, limit, status filtering, start_time, end_time, or the deprecated snippet_id alias. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List past invocations for a workflow,' followed by the fields included in the result. It also distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling get_invocation by explicitly saying that get_invocation is for the full record of a single run by ID. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separable from its siblings.
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 gives clear usage context by stating that this tool lists past invocations and then explicitly points to get_invocation for retrieving the full record of a single run by ID. It does not discuss alternatives like get_metrics or list_workflows, but the most relevant sibling distinction is covered, and the intended use case is 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.
