HUMMBL MCP Server

Find Workflow for Problem

find_workflow_for_problem

Identify the appropriate workflow for your problem by entering keywords describing your situation.

Instructions

Discover which workflow best fits your problem type or situation.

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": {
      "problem_keywords": "<problem_keywords>"
    },
    "name": "find_workflow_for_problem"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`problem_keywords`	Yes	Keywords describing your problem (e.g., 'failure', 'strategy', 'decision')

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`matchCount`	Yes
`recommendations`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.3May 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'discover which workflow best fits' but does not explain how the discovery works, what criteria are used, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden for transparency, and it falls short.

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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly expanded without harming brevity.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema details visible, the description omits important contextual information such as how results are returned, the matching algorithm, or differentiation from sibling tools like search_problem_patterns. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides a clear description for the only parameter, problem_keywords, with examples. The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool discovers the best workflow for a given problem type, using a specific verb (discover) and resource (workflow). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_workflows or search_problem_patterns by focusing on problem-to-workflow matching.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_workflows or search_problem_patterns, nor does it specify prerequisites or limitations.

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

Deploy Server