Retrieve a workflow's observability rollup by its key to inspect traces, monitors, and signals for debugging and analysis.
Get the observability rollup for one workflow by key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflow_key | Yes | Workflow key, e.g. "support.escalation". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). It merely restates the function without disclosing edge cases, return format, or error behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes almost nothing beyond the schema.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It delivers the core purpose immediately and does not waste tokens. This is exemplary conciseness for a simple get-by-key operation.
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?
The tool is simple, with one parameter and no output schema, and annotations are present. However, the description does not clarify what an 'observability rollup' contains or how the response is structured. Since there is no output schema, the agent must guess the return shape. For a read-only getter, this is a moderate gap, especially given the lack of alternative guidance.
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 the parameter is fully documented in the schema (workflow_key with an example). The description does not add any extra meaning or context about the parameter's format or constraints. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.
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 clearly states the verb (get), the resource (observability rollup), and the scope (one workflow by key). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like invariance_workflow_observability_list (multiple workflows) and invariance_workflow_observability_executions (execution-level details). However, it does not explicitly name these alternatives, so it stops short of a 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 is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description implies usage when you have a specific workflow_key and want the rollup, but it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives. This leaves the agent to infer selection logic from the name alone, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.