LS-PrePost-MCP

by lwz20210407

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_workflows

Find authored tutorial acceptance cases for LS-PrePost automation. Query examples to locate these cases; they are not completed automation recipes.

Instructions

Find authored tutorial acceptance cases; these are not completed automation recipes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_workflows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the nature of the corpus (authored tutorial/acceptance material rather than runnable recipes), which is a real trait beyond the schema. However it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, result size, or the meaning of the limit cap, leaving notable gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact clause with the content-type caveat front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the phrasing is slightly oblique for the tool's name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves the query semantics and result interpretation under-specified for a search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds nothing about either parameter. The agent gets no guidance on query syntax, matching behavior, or how limit interacts with results, so the meaning of the two parameters is entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb ("Find") and a resource ("authored tutorial acceptance cases"), but it never uses the term "workflows" and never distinguishes itself from the three other search-family siblings (search_knowledge, search_commands, search_workflows). An agent gets a rough sense of the content type but must infer the tool's actual scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"these are not completed automation recipes" is an implicit when-not hint that implies usage, but no explicit condition selects this tool over search_knowledge or search_commands, and no prerequisites or query expectations are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.