Routes a user task through a workflow by matching the request against nodes, returning the best-fit node or a fallback when no match exists.
入口路由——传 task + workflow 返回命中节点或 fallback。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | 用户请求文本（自然语言，如「帮我写一份财报分析」） | |
| workflow | Yes | 已解析的 workflow JSON（ParsedWorkflow 结构，含 nodes 数组） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'returns hit node or fallback' but does not disclose how the routing decision is made (e.g., whether it uses LLM or rules), failure behavior, or side effects. It does not contradict any annotations, but the behavioral detail is minimal.
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, succinct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and key output, though it could benefit from more detail without becoming verbose.
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, no output schema, and sibling tools that could overlap, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know when routing is appropriate, what counts as a fallback, and what the return value structure is to use it correctly, all of which are missing.
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 'task' and 'workflow' have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb (route) and resource (workflow), and mentions it returns a hit node or fallback, which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like workflow_submit, activate_workflow, or workflow_create, so an agent might confuse it with those.
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 alternatives such as workflow_submit or workflow_create. The description implies it is for routing but never specifies the context (e.g., 'when you need to determine which node handles a task'), leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.