Retrieve the history of workflow runs to track execution status and review past automation activities. Use this to audit and monitor workflow performance.
Historique des runs de workflows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'history of workflow runs' and does not explicitly disclose read-only behavior, ordering, scope, pagination, or any side effects. The list semantics are implied by the name but not clarified in the description.
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, short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and is front-loaded with the core resource and operation.
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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not required. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves some context gaps around what exactly constitutes a 'run', whether undone runs are included, and how this differs from related workflow run tools.
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 with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is required. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed for this tool.
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 'Historique des runs de workflows' clearly identifies the resource (workflow runs) and implies a listing/history operation. It distinguishes itself from list_workflows by focusing on runs rather than workflow definitions, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_workflows, apply_workflow, undo_workflow_run, or delete_workflow_runs. The description provides no context for selection or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.