Retrieve a specific workflow by ID to inspect its configuration for synthetic data generation, dataset management, and ML orchestration.
Get a specific workflow by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Workflow ID |
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 behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description does not state read-only safety, error behavior for missing IDs, or any side effects.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action, resource, and key immediately.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but omits where the ID comes from and what the returned workflow contains, especially since no output schema exists.
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 100% and the id parameter is documented as 'Workflow ID'. The description adds no format, source, or validation details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.
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 names a precise verb (Get), resource (workflow), and lookup key (ID), clearly distinguishing a single-resource fetch from list_workflows or mutation siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative or scope, so it falls short of the top tier.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_workflows for discovering IDs, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.