List workflows with their nested triggers and actions, using pagination to manage large collections.
List workflows (each with its nested triggers and actions) with optional pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) | |
| page_size | No | Number of items per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes nested triggers and actions, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (e.g., defaults, max page size) or whether the list is exhaustive, leaving minor gaps that annotations do not fill.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action, resource, and key inclusion (nested triggers/actions), with zero filler words. 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?
For a simple read-only list tool with two self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (listing workflows with nested content and pagination). It doesn't address potential edge cases like empty results or authorization, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 description coverage is 100%, so page and page_size are fully documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'optional pagination', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a concrete resource ('workflows') and adds a distinguishing detail ('each with its nested triggers and actions'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_workflow (single item) and list_workflow_triggers/actions (flat lists).
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 implies when to use it (when you need a paginated list of workflows including their nested structure), but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions. Compared to higher-tier examples, it lacks a 'use X instead for Y' statement, but the purpose is self-evident and no misleading guidance exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.