ImmunoGraph MCP

describe_agentic_workflow

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect a bounded workflow manifest, stage permissions, and approval gates before execution, returning declared stages and tool permissions without running any tools.

Instructions

Describe the bounded workflow manifest, stage permissions, and approval gates without running tools. Use to inspect orchestration before run_agentic_workflow; this is a description, not a live scientific call. Returns the declared stages and tool permissions.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runId`	Yes	Caller-chosen identifier linking this call to one research run.
`runIntent`	Yes	Short description of the planned research workflow to inspect.
`includeFutureInterfaces`	Yes	Whether to describe declared future interfaces as well as current stages.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether execution completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result fields on success.
`meta`	Yes	Run identifiers, timings, and input/output hashes.
`error`	No	Structured failure on unsuccessful execution.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.1Oct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / includeFutureInterfaces / description

Added value: +"Whether to describe declared future interfaces as well as current stages."

addedInput schema / properties / runId / description

Added value: +"Caller-chosen identifier linking this call to one research run."

addedInput schema / properties / runIntent / description

Added value: +"Short description of the planned research workflow to inspect."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "Tool-specific result fields on success.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Structured failure on unsuccessful execution.",
+      "properties": {
+        "category": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "code": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "details": {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "properties": {},
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "retryable": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "category",
+        "message",
+        "retryable"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "Run identifiers, timings, and input/output hashes.",
+      "properties": {
+        "completedAt": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "durationMs": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "inputHash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "outputHash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "requestId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "runId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "startedAt": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "toolName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "toolVersion": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "requestId",
+        "runId",
+        "toolName",
+        "toolVersion",
+        "startedAt",
+        "inputHash"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether execution completed successfully.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "meta"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.2.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds meaningful non-execution semantics ("without running tools," "not a live scientific call") and states what it returns (declared stages and tool permissions). It stops short of describing pagination or how approval gates are represented, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the usage routing. No redundant restatement of the name or filler content; every clause carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety. It is nearly complete for a read-only inspection tool; the only thin spot is not clarifying what 'bounded' or 'future interfaces' mean behaviorally.

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 runId, runIntent, and includeFutureInterfaces are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how includeFutureInterfaces changes the described output), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: describing the bounded workflow manifest, stage permissions, and approval gates. It explicitly distinguishes itself from run_agentic_workflow by noting it does not run tools, so an agent can pick it apart from its execution sibling without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

"Use to inspect orchestration before run_agentic_workflow" gives both the timing (before execution) and the alternative tool it complements. The clarifying clause "this is a description, not a live scientific call" reinforces when-not-to-expect-execution, leaving little to inference.

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

Deploy Server