Skip to main content
Glama
MCP Kafka Schema Reg

MCP Kafka Schema Reg

Describe Workflow

describe_workflow
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed information about a specific workflow definition by providing its workflow ID, enabling inspection of workflow structure and configuration.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a workflow definition

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>"
    },
    "name": "describe_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workflow_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.1.0
  2. Removedv2.2.2
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — it doesn't say what "detailed information" includes, whether the workflow definition is resolved across versions, or how a missing/invalid workflow_id is reported.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined density.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with an undocumented required identifier, no usage context, and no error behavior for this lookup, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the burden and it does not: it never mentions workflow_id, whether it is an ID versus a name, or its expected format. The only hint is the word "workflow" in the resource phrase.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Get detailed information about a workflow definition" states a specific verb (get) and resource (workflow definition details), which is clear and distinct from the schema/registry-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming or contrasting any alternative tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of other lookup tools, no prerequisites (e.g., where a workflow_id comes from), and no note on what to do when the ID is unknown. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.