Retrieve recent workflow executions with filtering by status or workflow ID, pagination, and statistics to monitor automation runs.
List recent workflow executions with filtering, pagination, and statistics
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of executions to return | |
| offset | No | Number of executions to skip | |
| status | No | Filter by execution status (optional) | |
| workflowId | No | Filter by specific workflow ID (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this requires authentication, what the return format looks like (e.g., list of execution objects), or any rate limits. The brief mention of 'statistics' is vague and not elaborated.
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 that front-loads the core action and lists capabilities. It is appropriately sized and contains no unnecessary words.
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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return structure, whether results are sorted, or what 'statistics' entails. It also lacks any usage context relative to sibling tools.
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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or filter behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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' and the resource 'workflow executions', which distinguishes it from siblings like list_workflows and get_execution_status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate its scope from get_execution_status, which also deals with executions.
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 description mentions filtering and pagination, implying the tool is for browsing multiple executions, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or name alternatives like get_execution_status for single-execution queries. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.