ToolForte

List saved workflows

workflow_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the workflows saved to the ToolForte account this API key belongs to. A workflow runs several ToolForte tools in order, passing each one the output of an earlier step, so it does a whole job in one call instead of you orchestrating the steps yourself. Returns each workflow's id, the inputs it expects, the steps it runs and what a run costs. Call this first: workflow_run needs an id from here. Requires an API key, because a workflow belongs to an account. Get a free key at https://toolforte.com/developers and send it on the MCP connection as the header Authorization: Bearer tf_...

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many to return, newest first.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Number of items
`result`	No	The result, when it is not an object
`workflows`	No	The workflows on the account

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of items",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "The result, when it is not an object"
+    },
+    "workflows": {
+      "description": "The workflows on the account",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds account scoping, authentication requirements (API key and Authorization header), and the specific returned fields. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds necessary context about workflow_run, returned data, and authentication. It is slightly longer than strictly required, but every sentence contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and robust annotations, the description covers scoping, authentication, returned fields, and the relationship to workflow_run. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, limit, is fully documented with default, minimum, maximum, and ordering semantics. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the weight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the workflows saved to the ToolForte account this API key belongs to.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling workflow_run by explaining that workflow_run needs an id obtained here.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says 'Call this first: workflow_run needs an id from here,' giving the agent a clear when-to-use instruction and the relationship to the main alternative tool. The workflow-orchestration framing also explains the broader context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ToolForte tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action, so an agent can usually tell them apart. A few close pairs exist (generate_test_bsn vs generate_brp_test_data, html_to_pdf vs url_to_pdf, read_page vs url_screenshot), but the descriptions draw clear boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern like generate_slug, validate_email, or pdf_merge. There are a few noun-style exceptions such as base64, csv_to_json, and password_strength, but no mixed casing or chaotic naming.

Tool Count3/5

40 tools is heavy and exceeds the comfortable selection range for most agents. The server presents itself as a general-purpose utility toolbox, so the breadth is defensible, but the large flat tool list creates real navigation burden.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers common encoding, conversion, image/PDF, validation, Dutch-specific test data, memory, and workflow needs quite well. Minor gaps like PDF text extraction or JSON-to-CSV conversion exist, but agents can typically work around them.

Resources

Need Help?