Get a workflow by ID, including its version history (with code) and the active version per environment. Use this to read the current code before editing an existing workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snippet_id | No | Deprecated alias for workflow_id. | |
| workflow_id | Yes | Workflow ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple getter by explaining that the response includes version history (with code) and per-environment active version, and explicitly frames the operation as reading code. It does not mention errors or side effects, but 'read' and 'Get' make the read-only nature reasonably transparent.
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 concise sentences: the first defines the operation and result content, the second gives usage context. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 read-by-ID tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, how to use it, and when it matters (before editing an existing workflow). It is not overly verbose, but it gives enough behavioral and contextual detail to call the tool correctly.
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 workflow_id and snippet_id are already documented. The description doesn't add new parameter-level meaning beyond 'by ID'; it mostly restates that the lookup is by workflow ID. This is the expected baseline when the schema fully covers parameters.
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?
Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a workflow by ID,' and further specifies what is returned: version history with code and active version per environment. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_workflows, invoke_workflow, and get_invocation.
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 second sentence gives explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to read the current code before editing an existing workflow.' It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the intended workflow step 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.
