Updates a workflow step's status (pending, running, completed, failed, or skipped) and optionally records result text to track task progress.
Update a workflow step's status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Optional result text | |
| status | Yes | New status: pending, running, completed, failed, skipped | |
| step_id | Yes | Step ID to update | |
| pool_name | No | Pool scope | |
| workflow_id | Yes | Workflow ID |
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 bears the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether status transitions are validated, whether updates are idempotent, whether the step must be in a particular state, or what happens to the optional result text — all critical for a mutation tool.
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 zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing, which is penalized elsewhere.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what a successful update returns, whether the workflow's own status changes, or how failures are surfaced.
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 each of the five parameters already has an inline description, including the enumerated status values. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Update a workflow step's status'), which is clearly narrower than trawl_workflow_status or trawl_workflow_create. However, it under-describes the tool's actual scope, since the schema also accepts result text and pool_name, so the stated purpose covers only part of what it does.
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 guidance on when to call this instead of trawl_workflow_status or trawl_workflow_create, and no mention of prerequisites such as a step already existing in a running workflow. The agent must infer its place in the workflow lifecycle entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.