Retrieve detailed information about a Temporal workflow execution by its workflow ID to inspect status, history, and state.
Get detailed information about a workflow execution
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | No | Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default | |
| workflow_id | Yes | The workflow execution ID to describe |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / namespaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default",
+ "enum": [
+ "default"
+ ],
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: no confirmation that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, no auth or namespace prerequisites, no note on failure behavior for unknown workflow IDs. For an unannotated tool, this is a thin disclosure.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently written, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than true crispness of a complete definition.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and return-shape information, yet 'detailed information' never says what is returned (status, config, timing, etc.) or how it relates to sibling read tools. For a describe tool lacking an output schema, this leaves a real gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (workflow_id and namespace, including its enum and server-default behavior) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter format or accepted values, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a workflow execution') with the added qualifier 'detailed information', so the agent knows this is a retrieval tool rather than a mutation. However, it does nothing to separate itself from close siblings like get_workflow_result, get_workflow_history, and get_workflow_event, all of which also return workflow execution data.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternatives in the sibling list. Nothing tells the agent whether this is the right call for inspecting status/config versus retrieving output, event history, or results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.