Retrieve a specific Semaphore UI workflow by project and workflow ID to inspect its details; availability depends on edition, license, and permissions.
Get workflow. Availability depends on Semaphore edition, license, and permissions; some Community routes return 404 or empty lists. GET /project/{project_id}/workflows/{workflow_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| workflow_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the static hints in the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds significant operational behavioral details regarding error handling (404 or empty lists) and environmental constraints (license/edition requirements). This is high-value context.
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 definition is highly concise. Every part of the statement serves a function—either stating the action, the operational caveat, or the API structure. It is efficiently structured.
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?
Given the limited metadata and schema coverage, the description performs well by addressing the most critical practical concerns: operational availability and error modes (404s). It leaves out return structure, but the operational completeness is high.
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 coverage is 0%. The description only reinforces the technical endpoint structure ('GET /project/{project_id}/workflows/{workflow_id}') and provides no semantic meaning or context regarding what the IDs represent or how they should be formatted beyond what the basic schema implies.
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 purpose is clearly stated as 'Get workflow.' It specifies retrieving a resource identified by IDs. It is clear enough for the agent to understand the action.
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 provides crucial usage context by detailing external dependencies ('Semaphore edition, license, and permissions'). This is essential guidance for the AI when determining if the tool is usable or if an operational check should be performed first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.