Lists workflows and optionally filters them by status or pool, helping you find pending, running, completed, or failed jobs in a scoped environment.
List all workflows, optionally filtered by status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status: pending, running, completed, failed | |
| pool_name | No | Pool scope |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "List" implies a safe read, but nothing is said about result size, pagination, ordering, or whether the set is scoped to a project/pool — real concerns for an unbounded "all workflows" call.
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. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the core is covered, but the agent is left guessing about scope (pool_name's effect) and result volume. Minimum viable rather than complete.
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 both parameters are already documented, including the valid status values. The description adds only a passing mention of the status filter and never mentions pool_name, so it does not exceed the schema.
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 and resource ("List all workflows") plus the optional filter, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from sibling reads such as trawl_workflow_status or trawl_workflow_create, leaving differentiation to inference.
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?
No statement of when to use this over trawl_workflow_status (single workflow lookup) or trawl_list_pools. The word "optionally" hints at filtering but never tells the agent when filtering matters or what happens without it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.