List all task workflows in Aspro Cloud to gain visibility into your CRM pipeline. Retrieve every workflow for managing deals and tasks.
List all task workflows
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_workflows"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying 'List all' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential pagination limits, required permissions, or the structure of the returned data. This adds no behavioral context beyond what the function name already conveys.
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 a single, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise for a tool that takes no parameters and performs a straightforward listing operation.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate: it states that all workflows will be listed. However, it lacks any detail about the returned data structure or how this tool relates to list_workflow_stages, leaving some ambiguity with 'task workflows'. It is complete enough for a basic list, but not richly contextual.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'all' is consistent with the empty input schema, signaling that no filters apply. There is no additional parameter information needed.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'workflows', making the action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_workflow_stages, but the phrase 'all task workflows' implies the full set of workflows. The qualifier 'task' introduces slight ambiguity, but the core purpose is evident.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tasks or list_pipelines. It does not mention any contextual scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and minimal description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.