avito-mcp-ru

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

avito_get_workflow

Read-only

Retrieve a workflow's full plan: ordered steps with the catalog operation_id each uses and why, plus interpretation guidance and common mistakes to avoid.

Instructions

Return the full plan for one workflow: ordered steps (each naming a catalog operation_id and why), interpretation guidance, and common mistakes to avoid.

Args: name: workflow name (see {svc}_list_workflows).

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "avito_get_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.3Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description clearly indicates a read-only retrieval ('Return the full plan') and specifies the content included. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but for a getter whose safety profile is otherwise implied, this is a minor gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Definition is concise: one front-loaded sentence for purpose, one bullet for the parameter. No redundant fluff, no repetition of schema details.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Together with the schema and sibling list, an agent has enough to know what this tool does)Skip, which argument to supply, and where to discover valid IDs. It doesn't state the output shape, but the plan description covers the functionally important parts.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description documents the only parameter ('workflow name') and points to the source of valid values ('see {svc}_list_workflows'), adding practical guidance beyond the schema's bare string type. It stops short of giving an example or format.

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 names a specific action ('Return') and resource ('the full plan for one workflow') and enumerates the concrete contents (ordered steps naming catalog operation_ids, interpretation guidance, common mistakes). This clearly differentiates it from workflow listing and other marketplace tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description tells the agent exactly when to use it (when the full plan for a single workflow is needed) and points to {svc}_list_workflows to resolve the workflow name. It does not explicitly name negative cases or alternatives, but sufficient context is present.

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