Retrieve workflow execution state, outputs, and errors, optionally with logs. Wait for it to finish.
Get a workflow execution's state, outputs and error, optionally with logs. Can also wait for it to finish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflowId | Yes | ||
| executionId | Yes | ||
| includeLogs | No | ||
| waitSeconds | No | Wait up to N seconds for completion | |
| includeInputs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does 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 some behavioral context by mentioning optional logs and the ability to wait for completion, but it does not describe limits on waiting, log volume, or behavior when the execution is already finished.
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 two compact sentences and is front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.
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 read-only get tool with no output schema, the description does explain what is returned at a high level. However, with five parameters and only 20% schema description coverage, it leaves too much parameter detail and usage guidance unstated.
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 20%, and the description only loosely covers includeLogs and waitSeconds. It does not explain workflowId, executionId, or includeInputs, leaving most parameters semantically undocumented beyond their names.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: get a workflow execution, returning state, outputs, error, and optionally logs. It also states that it can wait for completion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_executions or run_workflow.
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 usage for inspecting a specific execution and notes the optional wait behavior, which is a useful scenario cue. But it does not say when to use this tool versus list_executions or other execution-related siblings, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.