Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Atlas

Atlas

by Ctrl1CandV
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

atlas_list_workflows

List YAML workflow graph definitions in workflows/ and their validation status to see which Atlas workflows are ready for dry-run or execution.

Instructions

列出 workflows/ 里的图定义与校验状态(零成本)。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "atlas_list_workflows"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses two useful behavioral traits: it is zero-cost and it inspects validation state. However, it doesn't disclose read-only nature explicitly, pagination, or the format of the returned list.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loading the action and constraint. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a zero-param read, the description plus output schema covers the essentials, though the lack of sibling disambiguation is a minor gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document and the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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 specific verb+resource (list workflow graph definitions) and adds scope (in workflows/ directory) plus what's returned (validation status). Clear enough, though it doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling atlas_validate_workflow or atlas_list_runs.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The '(zero-cost)' hint implies safe/cheap enumeration, hinting at when to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance such as preferring this over atlas_validate_workflow for a quick status check.

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