Skip to main content
Glama
Rootly MCP server

Rootly MCP server

Official
by rootlyhq

List Workflows

list_workflows
Read-only

Retrieve and filter Rootly workflows by name, slug, creation date, or search terms, with sorting and pagination to locate automation definitions for incident response.

Instructions

List workflows

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNocomma separated if needed. eg: created_at,updated_at
includeNocomma separated if needed. eg: form_field_conditions,alert_field_conditions
page_sizeNo
filter_nameNo
filter_slugNo
page_numberNo
filter_searchNo
filter_name_eqNo
filter_name_inNo
filter_slug_eqNo
filter_slug_inNo
filter_name_not_eqNo
filter_name_not_inNo
filter_slug_not_eqNo
filter_slug_not_inNo
filter_created_at_gtNo
filter_created_at_ltNo
filter_created_at_gteNo
filter_created_at_lteNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default sort order, or what data is returned.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but under-specified rather than concise. It fails to front-load any useful information beyond the tool name, making it inadequate for a tool with 19 parameters.

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?

Although an output schema and annotations exist, the description is incomplete for a list tool with 19 parameters and many sibling tools. It does not clarify filtering, sorting, pagination, or how to distinguish this from list_workflow_runs or get_workflow.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The tool has 19 parameters with only 11% schema description coverage, and the description provides zero parameter semantics. There is no explanation of sorting, filtering, pagination, or include options beyond bare parameter names in the schema.

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

Purpose2/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The name implies listing workflows, but the description adds no context for selection.

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