get_approval_workflowFetch one approval workflow by its ID in LightCMS to review the configured approval steps and support content governance.
Get a single approval workflow by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | required,Workflow ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v7.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no further behavior such as whether the result is cached, what happens on a missing ID, or auth requirements. With annotations covering safety, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it forgoes any extra routing context.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, annotations covering read-only behavior, and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits any differentiation from the many sibling get_* tools or mention of what the returned workflow contains.
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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in-schema, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no format guidance (e.g., ID shape/source) beyond what the schema provides – baseline 3.
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?
Clear verb ('Get') plus resource ('approval workflow') and scope ('single ... by ID'). This implicitly distinguishes it from list_approval_workflows and create/update/delete_approval_workflow, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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: 'single ... by ID' hints you use it when you have a specific workflow ID, versus list_approval_workflows for enumeration. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.