get_workflow_previewRetrieve an authorized workflow preview and, once committed, its saved outcome. The preview owner can read these details without making changes.
Read an authorized preview and, when committed, its saved outcome. The requesting actor must be the preview owner. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| farm_id | No | Farm UUID; defaults to the active farm. | |
| preview_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the ownership authorization requirement and the conditional behavior that a committed preview returns its saved outcome. It still doesn't say what happens for uncommitted previews.
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 tight sentences, no filler, with the ownership constraint and read-only nature front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
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 output schema, the description does note the committed-outcome behavior, and annotations cover safety. However, it omits what an uncommitted preview returns and adds nothing for the undocumented required preview_id, leaving the picture partly incomplete.
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 coverage is 50%: farm_id is documented in the schema, but the required preview_id has no description in either the schema or the description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (read) and resource (an authorized preview plus its saved outcome when committed), which cleanly separates it from the sibling preview_workflow that produces previews. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the 'get existing preview' framing is unambiguous.
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?
The precondition 'the requesting actor must be the preview owner' is a useful gating rule, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to preview_workflow, commit_workflow, or discard_workflow. Usage is implied by the read-existing framing rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.