melra_workflow_advanceAdvance a workflow by executing one ready scheduling wave through governed MELRA tasks; include optional node inputs and approval phrases.
Execute one ready workflow scheduling wave through governed MELRA tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputs | No | ||
| approvals | No | ||
| workflowId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond "governed": it does not warn that this is a non-idempotent mutation that can destroy prior workflow state, nor explain what "governed" means (approval gating) or what happens on partial failure. "One wave" is the only incremental-behavior hint offered.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally sound. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise, and the jargon-laden wording costs clarity per word.
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 destructive, non-idempotent workflow-execution tool with approval inputs, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. The agent lacks the workflow-stage context and approval mechanics needed to call it correctly, though the destructive annotation and "one wave" phrasing at least convey that this is a consequential step.
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% across three parameters, including two nested arrays (inputs, approvals) with structural constraints like maxItems and UUID/phrase pairing, and the description mentions no parameter at all. It does not compensate for the coverage gap in any way — an agent gets no guidance on what inputs or approvals must contain. Only the word "governed" faintly gestures at the approvals concept.
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 verb ("Execute") and a resource ("one ready workflow scheduling wave"), so the general intent is graspable. However, "scheduling wave" and "governed MELRA tasks" are unexplained jargon, and it gives no differentiation from close siblings like melra_execute or melra_workflow_control. An agent can guess it advances a workflow but cannot confidently separate it from those siblings.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus melra_execute, melra_workflow_control, or melra_workflow_status, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the workflow must first be planned, or that approvals are needed). The phrase "one ready ... wave" hints at incremental stepping, but the agent must infer everything about invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.