Retrieve a business process with its ordered steps and the role responsible for each step. Use this structured context to route tasks, explain procedures, and validate actions.
Return a business process with its ordered steps and the role responsible for each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| process_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| steps | Yes | ||
| description | Yes |
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 full disclosure burden. 'Return' implies a safe read, and the description usefully describes the shape of the payload (ordered steps and per-step responsible role), but it says nothing about permissions, behavior for an unknown ID, or whether step ordering is guaranteed versus incidental.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and result, with no redundant wording. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is rightly omitted, and the description covers enough to call the tool. However, for a lookup-by-ID tool the missing link to list_processes and the unexplained identifier leave a real 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate and does not — it never explains what process_id is, where to obtain it, or its format. The agent learns only that some process identifier is required.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Return a business process') and even names the payload contents — ordered steps plus the responsible role per step. That distinguishes it from list_processes by scope (single process vs. collection), though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of list_processes as the way to discover valid IDs. The singular resource plus a required process_id only weakly implies 'use this once you know the ID'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.