List ambient workflow runs with optional filters for status, workflow, or agent ID to track execution history and troubleshoot outcomes.
List ambient workflow runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| workflow_id | No | ||
| ambient_agent_id | No | ||
| ambient_workflow_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals that the tool lists runs. It does not describe output format, ordering, pagination, default scope, or whether any side effects occur. The operation is implied to be read-only, but no supporting detail is given.
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?
The description is a single, punctuation-free phrase with no filler, so it is concise. However, for a tool with 6 undocumented parameters and no sibling differentiation, the one-line description is under-specified rather than appropriately sized.
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 the low schema coverage, absent annotations, and missing output schema, the description is insufficient on its own. It conveys the basic list action but omits information an agent would need to choose filters or interpret results.
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?
All 6 parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning to q, limit, status, workflow_id, ambient_agent_id, or ambient_workflow_id. The description does nothing to compensate for the total absence of parameter documentation.
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?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'List ambient workflow runs.' This is a specific operation and is distinguishable at a high level from yaaif_ambient_run_get (single-run retrieval) and yaaif_ambient_workflow_list (workflow definitions). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these siblings, and 'workflow runs' is slightly ambiguous given the parameter ambient_workflow_id.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus yaaif_ambient_run_get, yaaif_ambient_workflow_list, yaaif_ops_ambient_run_get, or other run-related tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.