List all flows in a project with their IDs, names, and step counts.
List flows in a project (id, name, folder, step count).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Path to the project root (same folder the side panel connects to). Defaults to the EASYSPEC_PROJECT environment variable if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the mention of returned fields (id, name, step count) gives insight into behavior. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple list this is adequate.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, then provides the return fields parenthetically. No redundant or irrelevant information.
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?
Given the simplicity of the operation, the description is complete enough. It states the scope and the expected output fields, which is especially important since there is no output schema. It does not discuss edge cases or filtering, but these are not necessary for a straightforward list operation.
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 is only one parameter, 'project', and the schema description fully explains its meaning and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the schema alone carries the semantic weight.
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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (flows), and the scope (in a project). It also lists the specific fields returned (id, name, step count), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_utils or list_scenarios.
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 usage is implied by the resource type and the tool name, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or describe when to choose this over alternatives like list_utils or list_scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.