Discover available built-in workflow macros and retrieve their IDs, names, descriptions, inputs, and outputs so you can select reusable sub-workflows.
List available workflow macros (built-in sub-workflows). Returns id, name, description, inputs, outputs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return fields (id, name, description, inputs, outputs) and 'List' implies a safe read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect behavior, permissions, or pagination.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return fields. Every sentence adds useful information with no waste.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose and return shape. It is slightly incomplete in not relating the tool to insert_macro, but it provides enough for correct invocation.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter guidance.
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 and resource: listing available workflow macros, clarified as built-in sub-workflows. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related insert_macro sibling.
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?
Usage is implied by 'List available' and the natural workflow of discovering macros before using one. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus insert_macro or list_templates, nor does it name an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.