Discover available multi-step workflows and their requirements, so you can run routine stock analyses with a single call.
List the saved multi-step workflows and what each one needs. A workflow runs several tools in one call, always the same way — use it when the user wants a routine (a full look at one stock, a morning sweep, a bandarmology check) rather than a single reading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (workflows are fixed multi-step routines) but does not clarify other behaviors such as whether output is exhaustive or whether listing workflows has any side effects.
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?
Two sentences: the first names exactly what is returned, the second explains the concept and when to use it. There is no filler or repeated schema/annotation content.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool the description is nearly complete: it states the output and intended use case. It could be slightly stronger by pointing to workflow_run as the execution companion, but that is a minor 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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema confirms this, so no parameter detail is needed. The description's mention of output ('what each one needs') is the only relevant input/output guidance and is sufficient.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the saved multi-step workflows and what each one needs.' It also contrasts with single-reading tools, which prevents confusion with the many single-purpose siblings like quote or technicals.
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 explicitly states when to use it: 'use it when the user wants a routine ... rather than a single reading.' It does not name workflow_run as the execution alternative, but the workflow-run explanation makes the intended context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.