Measure operator-workflow alignment stage by stage, providing fit scores to pinpoint gaps and guide performance improvements.
Get workflow fit analysis — operator/workflow fit scores across workflow stages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| stages | Yes | ||
| synthetic | Yes | ||
| workflow_id | Yes | ||
| observations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that. The description adds modest context by stating the analysis spans workflow stages, but it does not describe any further behavioral traits such as aggregation level or data source.
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 sentence delivers the tool's purpose and scope with no filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and the em-dash addition is the only elaboration, which is exactly the amount needed for a zero-parameter read tool.
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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the tool returns and the domain (operator/workflow fit). It could add a short note on how to interpret the scores, but this is not necessary given the output schema and annotations.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The 0-param baseline of 4 applies because the description need not compensate for schema gaps.
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 specific verb (Get) and a concrete resource (workflow fit analysis), and clarifies the content as operator/workflow fit scores across workflow stages. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, but 'workflow fit' is distinct enough among the listed siblings to identify the tool's purpose.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_composite_score or get_diagnostics. There are no exclusions, but also no explicit context or when-not-to-use conditions, so an agent must infer applicability 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.