Skip to main content
Glama

list_workflows

Search and filter workflows in Rowan MCP Server by criteria like name, type, status, folder, and public/starred status with pagination support.

Instructions

List workflows subject to the specified criteria.

Args: parent_uuid: UUID of parent folder to filter by. Empty string for all folders name_contains: Substring to search for in workflow names. Empty string for all names public: Filter by public status ("true"/"false"). Empty string for both starred: Filter by starred status ("true"/"false"). Empty string for both status: Filter by workflow status code. Empty string for all statuses workflow_type: Filter by workflow type (e.g., 'conformer_search', 'pka'). Empty string for all types page: Page number for pagination (0-indexed) size: Number of workflows per page

Returns: List of workflow dictionaries that match the search criteria

Raises: HTTPError: If the request to the API fails

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
parent_uuidNoUUID of parent folder to filter by. Empty string for all folders
name_containsNoSubstring to search for in workflow names. Empty string for all names
publicNoFilter by public status ('true'/'false'). Empty string for both
starredNoFilter by starred status ('true'/'false'). Empty string for both
statusNoFilter by workflow status code. Empty string for all statuses
workflow_typeNoFilter by workflow type (e.g., 'conformer_search', 'pka'). Empty string for all types
pageNoPage number for pagination (0-indexed)
sizeNoNumber of workflows per page
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and error handling (HTTPError), which are valuable. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, performance characteristics, or what happens when no workflows match criteria. The 'Returns' section describes output format at a high level but lacks detail about dictionary structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and efficiently communicates key information. However, the opening sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the parameter documentation could be more concise given the comprehensive schema coverage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not comprehensive coverage. It explains filtering and pagination but lacks details about authentication, rate limits, and the structure of returned workflow dictionaries. Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations), more behavioral context would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats what's in the schema without adding significant new semantic context. The baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, though the description does reinforce parameter purposes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('workflows'), and specifies filtering criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_workflow' (singular) or explain how this list operation relates to workflow submission tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'retrieve_workflow' (for single workflow) or explain that this is for browsing/searching workflows rather than retrieving specific ones. No prerequisites or context for usage are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/k-yenko/rowan-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server