Claude Project History MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Workflows

cph_workflow_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Filter and retrieve workflows by status: active, paused, completed, or archived. Returns workflow IDs and names for quick status overview.

Instructions

List workflows filtered by status.

Returns: Array of workflows with ID, name, status. No task counts (use cph_workflow_summary for that).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cph_workflow_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds return format (array with ID, name, status) and absence of task counts. Lacks pagination or ordering details, but overall good.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded purpose and guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one optional param, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers return structure and key distinction from sibling. Missing default behavior (no filter returns all?) and ordering details, but minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only parameter 'status' has enum fully defined in schema. Description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by status but no extra semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List workflows filtered by status' with verb, resource, and filter. It distinguishes from sibling cph_workflow_summary by noting no task counts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'No task counts (use cph_workflow_summary for that)', providing clear guidance on when to use an alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.