Plori

Official

by plori-ai

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

List workflow executions

list_workflow_executions

Read-only

Retrieve recent executions for a workflow, showing status, fault reasons, billing, and timing. Quickly identify failed runs and understand why they ended.

Instructions

List a workflow's recent executions, most recent first. Each record includes status, fault, billing, trigger source, timing, credits, and timestamps. fault explains why a non-succeeded execution ended. user means the workflow's own steps or limits. A platform fault is never billed. fault is null when the execution succeeded. billed is the billing flag.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workflow_id`	Yes	The workflow's UUID (from list_workflows or create_workflow).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`executions`	Yes	Recent workflow executions, most recent first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.16.0Sep 19, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "executions": {
+      "description": "Recent workflow executions, most recent first.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "billed": {
+            "description": "The billing flag. True only for a user-fault succeeded, failed, or timed-out execution.",
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "created_at": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "credits": {
+            "type": [
+              "null",
+              "integer"
+            ]
+          },
+          "duration_ms": {
+            "type": [
+              "null",
+              "integer"
+            ]
+          },
+          "ended_at": {
+            "type": [
+              "null",
+              "string"
+            ]
+          },
+          "error": {
+            "description": "Arbitrary JSON owned by the producing engine."
+          },
+          "fault": {
+            "description": "Why a non-succeeded execution ended. User means the workflow's own steps or limits. A platform fault is never billed. This field is null when the execution succeeded.",
+            "type": [
+              "null",
+              "string"
+            ]
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "started_at": {
+            "type": [
+              "null",
+              "string"
+            ]
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "step_stats": {
+            "description": "Arbitrary JSON owned by the producing engine."
+          },
+          "steps": {
+            "description": "Arbitrary JSON owned by the producing engine."
+          },
+          "trigger_source": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "workflow_id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "workflow_id",
+          "status",
+          "fault",
+          "billed",
+          "trigger_source",
+          "started_at",
+          "ended_at",
+          "duration_ms",
+          "credits",
+          "created_at"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": [
+        "null",
+        "array"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "executions"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.7.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining fault semantics (null on success, platform faults never billed) and the billed flag, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is concise, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds useful field semantics without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers key field meanings and ordering, which is sufficient for a simple list tool. Minor gaps like pagination limits are not addressed but are not critical here.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The sole parameter workflow_id is fully described in the schema with a clear source hint. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3 given the high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists a workflow's recent executions, most recent first. It specifies the resource (workflow executions) and the action (list). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_workflow_execution, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 get_workflow_execution. It does not mention any conditions for choosing this over other listing or retrieval tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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