Retrieve workflow execution sessions and filter results by status, project, workflow, or time range to monitor runs.
List workflow execution sessions with filtering options
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default: 100) | |
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| last_id | No | Pagination cursor | |
| to_time | No | End time (ISO 8601) | |
| from_time | No | Start time (ISO 8601) | |
| project_name | No | Filter by project name | |
| workflow_name | No | Filter by workflow name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but never states read-only safety, result ordering, default page size behavior, or what happens when limit/last_id interact. For a 7-parameter listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is largely a byproduct of leaving details unstated rather than a deliberate compression.
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?
Given 7 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify pagination behavior and result shape or ordering. It does none of these, so an agent could invoke it but would not understand what it gets back or how to page correctly.
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 every parameter (limit, status, last_id, from_time, to_time, project_name, workflow_name) is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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+resource: 'List workflow execution sessions', which is distinguishable from list_workflows, list_projects, and get_session_attempts. However, it doesn't clarify the relationship to the session-related siblings (get_session_attempts, retry_session) or confirm the scope of 'workflow execution sessions'.
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?
'with filtering options' is the only usage hint, and it provides no guidance on when to use this versus list_workflows or get_session_attempts. Nothing explains when filters should be applied, whether all filters can combine, or how the cursor pagination should be driven.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.