magicbell_list_workflowsList notification workflows with cursor pagination. Project API: GET /workflows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items per page (cursor pagination). | |
| ending_before | No | Cursor: return items before this id (previous page). | |
| starting_after | No | Cursor: return items after this id (next page). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of cursor pagination adds some value beyond annotations, but does not provide a comprehensive behavioral overview (e.g., no mention of return format or error handling).
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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence provides the core purpose and key feature (cursor pagination), and the second is a brief API reference. Every sentence earns its place.
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 list tool with 3 optional parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of workflow objects with pagination metadata). Given no output schema, this gap reduces completeness.
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 coverage is 100% and the description adds context by naming cursor pagination, which explains the purpose of the 'ending_before' and 'starting_after' parameters. This enhances understanding beyond the schema definitions alone.
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 clearly states the action 'list' and the resource 'notification workflows', distinguishing it from sibling list tools like magicbell_list_broadcasts and magicbell_list_channels.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The API reference 'Project API: GET /workflows' is informative but not actionable for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (create, get, list, update) with no overlap. Verbs and nouns are clearly separated.
All tools follow a consistent 'magicbell_verb_noun' pattern, with verbs (create, get, list, update) and singular/plural usage appropriate to the operation.
13 tools cover core user management, broadcast/event observability, and configuration listing without being excessive or sparse for a notification platform.
Covers user CRUD (missing delete), broadcast/event/get/list, and configuration listing. While some write operations are absent, the set supports essential admin and observability tasks.