Skip to main content
Glama
CronusL-1141

AI Team OS

by CronusL-1141
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

workflow_list

List CC ultracode/Workflow runs tracked by the OS observability layer, with status, project, and limit filters.

Instructions

List CC ultracode/Workflow runs tracked by the OS observability layer.

planned_agent_count is a STATIC LOWER BOUND (literal agent() calls in the launch script), not a target. dynamic_nodes counts the fan-out nodes (pipeline / .map / while) whose width is only known at runtime, so a run with dynamic_nodes > 0 legitimately ends with agent_count > planned_agent_count - that is expected, not a miscount. planned_agent_count == 0 means no static parse was recorded (typically a run ingested by offline file reconcile), i.e. the plan is unknown rather than zero.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of runs to return (default 20, 1-200; larger values are rejected).
statusNoFilter by status: "planned" / "running" / "completed" / "interrupted" / "killed" / "failed" (empty = all).
project_idNoFilter by project ID (empty = all projects).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.15.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Maximum number of runs to return (default 20)."New value: +"Maximum number of runs to return (default 20, 1-200; larger\nvalues are rejected)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by status: \"planned\" / \"running\" / \"completed\" / \"interrupted\" (empty = all)."New value: +"Filter by status: \"planned\" / \"running\" / \"completed\" /\n\"interrupted\" / \"killed\" / \"failed\" (empty = all)."
  2. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only listing and adds genuine semantic context about planned_agent_count/dynamic_nodes (notably that planned_agent_count == 0 means 'unknown plan', not zero), but it omits pagination behavior, ordering, and permission requirements.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the following paragraph is long and dedicated almost entirely to one output field's semantics, diluting focus on invocation. The content is useful but not tightly scoped to the tool's purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description spends its weight there while leaving usage routing and behavioral traits uncovered. Adequate but with clear gaps for an observability list tool.

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% with all three parameters (limit, status, project_id) fully documented including defaults and the 1-200 bound. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'List CC ultracode/Workflow runs tracked by the OS observability layer.' An agent can distinguish this from workflow_get (single run) and workflow_reconcile, though the description never explicitly names those siblings to sharpen the distinction.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus workflow_get or workflow_reconcile, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The bulk of the text covers how to interpret result fields, not when to invoke the tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools