list_workflowsLists Bayze workflows configured on this machine, including IDs, limits, and step chains, so you can inspect available local workflows without exposing credentials or endpoints.
List Bayze workflows configured on this machine (ids, limits, step chains). Contains no credentials or endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral content: results are machine-local and exclude credentials and endpoints, which tells the agent what it will not get back. However, it says nothing about whether it reads from disk, whether any permission or auth is required, or whether the result set can be large or truncated, leaving the read/safety profile only inferred from the word 'List'.
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, front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by the returned fields and a negative-scope clause. Nothing is repeated or wasted.
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 zero-parameter, read-only enumeration call with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned fields (ids, limits, step chains) and clarifying the credential/endpoint exclusion. Only a hint about volume or ordering is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is a closed empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. It correctly adds no parameter chatter.
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 ('List') and a specific resource ('Bayze workflows configured on this machine') and previews the payload (ids, limits, step chains). An agent can distinguish this enumeration tool from run_workflow and get_run_summary, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 local-machine scoping and the 'Contains no credentials or endpoints' note imply this is a discovery/introspection call to make before running a workflow, but the description never states when to use it versus run_workflow or get_run_summary, and offers no exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.