Retrieve available subflows for reuse across automation flows. Filter by name, active status, and result limit to locate the needed subflow.
List available subflows that can be reused across flows
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 50) | |
| query | No | Search subflows by name | |
| active | No | Filter to active subflows only (default true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is consistent with those. It adds the context that subflows are 'reused across flows', but does not describe pagination, default limit, active-only filtering, or return format. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 that conveys the essential purpose with no fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple list tool with strong schema and annotations, but it lacks usage guidance and does not clarify whether the result includes all subflows or only those visible to the user. No output schema puts some burden on the description, which it does not fully address.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, query, active). The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so baseline 3 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 clearly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('subflows'), and the scope ('available... that can be reused across flows'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_subflow or get_subflow.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_flows or get_subflow). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit use cases beyond the generic 'list available subflows'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.