list_workflow_groupsList and filter workflow groups by name, slug, kind, or search term to manage Rootly automation workflows.
List workflow groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| filter_kind | No | ||
| filter_name | No | ||
| filter_slug | No | ||
| page_number | No | ||
| filter_search | No | ||
| filter_expanded | No | ||
| filter_position | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or what the open-world read actually reaches. With annotations present the bar is lower, but zero added value caps the score.
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?
Three words, so there is no verbosity — but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A description that is essentially a label leaves nothing to be front-loaded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a listing tool with 9 optional filter and pagination parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin to let an agent construct a correct call; only the existence of annotations and an output schema keeps this above the floor.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, and the description does not name or explain a single one. Critical ambiguities are left unresolved, e.g. what 'include' selects, what values 'filter_kind' accepts, and how 'filter_expanded' or 'filter_position' behave.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_workflow_group, create_workflow_group, update_workflow_group, or list_workflows. The agent must infer usage purely from the name, with no alternatives or exclusions offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.