list_workflow_templatesList farm-owned workflow templates with their current published versions, including default lambing starters for sheep farms on first use. Read-only access for MCP clients.
List farm-owned workflow templates with their current published version. Sheep farms receive Detailed and Minimal lambing starters on first use. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| farm_id | No | ||
| workflow | No |
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, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. However, the description adds genuine context the annotations do not cover: that results include each template's current published version and that sheep farms get seeded with Detailed and Minimal lambing starters.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Each sentence contributes either scope, return content, or domain behavior.
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?
For a read-only list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description adequately conveys what is returned. It falls short on the four undocumented parameters (notably skip/take pagination) and has no output schema to compensate, so an agent lacks paging and filtering semantics.
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 all four parameters (skip, take, farm_id, workflow), so the description carries full burden but explains none of them. 'farm-owned' only faintly implies the farm_id filter; pagination (skip/take) and the workflow filter are left entirely undocumented.
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 ('List farm-owned workflow templates') plus scope ('with their current published version'), which clearly separates it from singular siblings like get_workflow_template. It never explicitly names the sibling alternative, but the list-vs-get distinction is inferable from the verb.
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 is given beyond the implicit 'read-only' signal. It does not state when to call this versus get_workflow_template or the create/publish/state-change siblings, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.