Retrieve workflows and optionally filter by project name to monitor jobs, with pagination for browsing results.
List workflows. Optionally filter by project name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of workflows to return (default: 100) | |
| last_id | No | Pagination cursor for next page | |
| project_name | No | Name of the project to filter by (optional) |
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 does not disclose pagination behavior, the default limit, permissions, or what the returned workflow objects contain; 'List' alone leaves the agent to infer read-only safety and read semantics.
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?
Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. It is perhaps too terse for the gaps it leaves, but structurally it is efficient and well-ordered.
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 read tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about return shape or pagination behavior to be 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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the optional project_name filter already documented in the schema and adds no syntax, matching, or pagination guidance 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 and resource ('List workflows'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like list_projects or list_databases. It does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces or contrast with one, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The only guidance is 'Optionally filter by project name,' which is parameter behavior rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no indication of when to choose this over list_projects or other list tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.