Fetch a compact workflow snapshot covering revisions, file blockers, and measured timings; omit model response bodies to support status checks.
Get one compact snapshot of the entire workflow, revisions, file blockers and measured timings, without model response bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflow_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the snapshot is 'compact' and excludes model response bodies, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, cost, rate limits, or whether the snapshot is cached/live.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then enumerates the snapshot contents. No wasted words, though the trailing negation clause is a slightly awkward place for the key exclusion detail.
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 standalone read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the snapshot returns and how it differs from wait_workflow/analyze_workflow. It gives content categories but not enough to call it 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?
Only one parameter exists (workflow_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the sole formal requirement is the ID. The description implies the ID identifies 'the entire workflow' but adds no format, source, or example. Baseline for a single documented parameter, but the description could have clarified workflow_id semantics.
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 (Get) and resource (workflow status), and details the snapshot contents: revisions, file blockers, timings. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but 'workflow' scope distinguishes it from job-oriented siblings cleanly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this precedes or replaces wait_workflow, analyze_workflow, or get_job_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.