Retrieve the result of a completed Temporal workflow using its workflow ID to inspect final output.
Get the result of a completed workflow
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | No | Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default | |
| workflow_id | Yes | The workflow execution ID |
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"
+}v1.9.0v1.5.0v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Completed workflow" hints that the call may fail or block on an unfinished execution, but it never says what happens in that case, whether the call blocks, or what the returned result contains. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.
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 eight-word sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should at least sketch what "the result" is (payload shape, terminal-state requirement, error on incomplete runs). It stays at minimum viable for a simple two-parameter read tool but leaves the return contract entirely unexplained.
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%, with both workflow_id and namespace documented inline (including the namespace omit-default behavior), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameter format or required ID source.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: retrieving the result of a workflow. The word "completed" narrows scope and implicitly distinguishes it from get_workflow_event and get_activity_result. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state scope beyond that, so it falls short of 5.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus get_workflow_event, get_workflow_history, or describe_workflow, and no stated precondition (e.g. only after the workflow reaches a terminal state). The agent must infer the timing constraint from the word "completed" alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.