Create ordered workflows with named steps and explicit dependencies, optionally scoped to a pool, to define and coordinate multi-step tasks.
Create a workflow with named steps and dependency ordering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Workflow name | |
| steps | Yes | Steps: [{name, description?, depends_on?}] | |
| pool_name | No | Pool scope (optional, global if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether creation is idempotent, what happens on a duplicate name, whether depends_on references are validated or must point to earlier steps, or what identifier is returned. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the tool is a mutation with no annotations.
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?
For a create/mutation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should cover side effects, uniqueness behavior, return value, and pool scoping. None of these are present, leaving the agent to guess at critical behavior.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'named steps and dependency ordering' only echoes the schema's steps/depends_on documentation and adds no format, constraint, or validation detail beyond it.
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?
States a specific verb (Create) and resource (workflow) plus the defining content: named steps with dependency ordering. An agent can tell it apart from trawl_workflow_update or trawl_workflow_list by verb alone, but the description never explicitly names those siblings or scopes itself against them.
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 guidance on when to use this versus trawl_workflow_update (modify existing), trawl_workflow_list (discover existing), or trawl_workflow_status. No prerequisites are mentioned, such as whether a pool must be loaded first via trawl_load_pool or whether the workflow name must be unique.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.