list_workflowsLists classic and Architect workflows that run on a single document and are available to start, helping you select a valid workflow before processing. Free.
List workflows that run_workflow can start on one document: classic workflows and Architect workflows that are runnable and take a single document. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful inclusion criteria and states that the operation is 'Free', but it does not describe ordering, pagination, or result shape, so it provides some behavioral context without being rich.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the action and scope in a single sentence, with no redundant repetition. The standalone 'Free.' fragment is slightly abrupt, but it is relevant and the overall structure is efficient.
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 no-parameter list tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key context: what is listed, which workflows qualify, and that the call is free. Minor operational details such as ordering or pagination are absent but not essential for invoking 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning to add, and the description appropriately does not invent or misdescribe 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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List workflows') and defines the exact scope: workflows that run_workflow can start on one document. It also names the two workflow types and the runnable/single-document criteria, which distinguishes this from the sibling run_workflow tool.
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?
It clearly ties the tool to the run_workflow single-document use case, implying it should be used to discover startable workflows. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.