Search Orchestrator workflows by partial name to retrieve their ID, category, version, and description. Omit the name to list all available workflows.
Find Orchestrator workflows by (partial) name. Returns id, name, category, version, description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Partial name; omit to list all | |
| limit | No | ||
| startIndex | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds the enumerated return fields (id, name, category, version, description), which is genuine value, but says nothing about result volume, paging behavior, or case sensitivity of the partial match.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and match mode before the return payload. Every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, listing the returned fields is a necessary and well-used addition, and the search semantics are clear. But for a paginated lookup tool, the absence of any paging or result-size guidance leaves the definition adequate rather than complete.
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 only 33%: 'name' is documented ('Partial name; omit to list all') but 'limit' and 'startIndex' have no descriptions at all. The tool description does nothing to compensate, never explaining paging, the 500 cap, or how startIndex interacts with limit, leaving two of three parameters semantically opaque.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Find Orchestrator workflows') plus the matching mode ('by (partial) name'), which distinguishes it from the id-based sibling vro_get_workflow. It does not, however, mention the near-twin vro_find_actions or explicitly contrast search vs. get, so sibling differentiation is only implied.
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?
Usage is only implied: the word 'Find' plus 'partial name' suggests this is the discovery/lookup entry point before using vro_get_workflow or vro_run_workflow, but the description never states when to prefer it over those siblings or what prerequisites apply. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.