Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-pool-mcp

agent-pool-mcp

by rnd-pro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_workflows

List global workflows and workflows from the active team-memory workspace project directory to view available automation tasks.

Instructions

List global workflows plus workflows from the active team-memory workspace//workflows directory.

Tool call template

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoWorking directory. Defaults to current working directory.
filesNoKnown relevant file paths used to activate workspace context when loading this item.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.3

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions the source of workflows (global and workspace). It does not disclose if the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or side effects like cache updates.

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 a single sentence, efficient and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly clearer by breaking down the sources, but overall concise.

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?

The description is minimal for a list tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain return format, filtering, or prerequisite workspace context, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions for 'cwd' and 'files'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 workflows from two sources: global and from a workspace directory. It is specific about the resource and scope, distinguishing it from related tools like get_workflow_content.

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 other listing tools or when to filter results. It lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools