Skip to main content
Glama
rad-security

RAD Security

Official
by rad-security

list_workflows

Retrieve all security workflows to monitor and manage Kubernetes and cloud security operations within RAD Security's platform.

Instructions

List all workflows

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that executes the API call to list all workflows using the RadSecurityClient.
    export async function listWorkflows(
      client: RadSecurityClient
    ): Promise<any> {
      const response = await client.makeRequest(
        `/accounts/${client.getAccountId()}/workflows`
      );
    
      return response;
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the list_workflows tool (empty object, no parameters required).
    export const ListWorkflowsSchema = z.object({});
  • src/index.ts:507-511 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ListTools response, defining name, description, and input schema for list_workflows.
    {
      name: "list_workflows",
      description: "List all workflows",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(workflows.ListWorkflowsSchema),
    },
  • MCP server handler for the list_workflows tool call, parses args, invokes the core listWorkflows function, and formats response.
    case "list_workflows": {
      workflows.ListWorkflowsSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const response = await workflows.listWorkflows(client);
      return {
        content: [
          { type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2) },
        ],
      };
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List all workflows' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., scope, filters). It's minimal and lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving ideal conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple zero-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'list' returns (e.g., format, fields) or behavioral aspects like ordering or limits. For a tool in a security/compliance context with many siblings, more context would help the agent use it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 'List all workflows' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('workflows'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workflow' (singular) and 'list_workflow_runs' (different resource). However, it lacks specificity about scope or format, preventing a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differences from siblings like 'get_workflow' or 'run_workflow'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rad-security/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server