An MCP server that orchestrates workflows.
The orchestrator-mcp-server defines 5 tools with clear action verbs (list_, start_, get_, advance_, resume_), which is good naming. However, parameter descriptions are sparse or missing entirely, schemas are partially visible but lack detail, and output structures are not documented. The tools are well-composed for workflow orchestration (each has a single responsibility), but lack the rigor expected of production tools. Error handling is mentioned in code but not reflected in tool descriptions, so LLMs have no guidance on recovery. Descriptions themselves are adequate (30-80 chars each) but do not explain WHEN to call which tool or what the LLM should expect in return.
Reports the outcome of the previously completed step and requests the next step. This tool is used by the AI Client (e.g., the AI assistant executing the workflow) to communicate the result of executing a workflow step.
Gets the current status of a running workflow instance.
List available workflow definitions.
Resumes a suspended or previously running workflow instance after an interruption, reconciling the assumed state with the persisted state.
Starts a workflow by its definition name.
Output schemas not documented. Tools return structured data (StartWorkflowOutput, GetWorkflowStatusOutput, AdvanceResumeWorkflowOutput) but LLMs have no visibility into what fields to expect or how to chain results.
Parameter descriptions are minimal or absent. 'context' in start_workflow is described only as 'Initial context for the workflow instance', what fields does it accept? What structure? LLMs cannot reason about this.
No error guidance in tool descriptions. Tools like advance_workflow and resume_workflow are complex state transitions, but descriptions do not explain what can fail, why, or what the LLM should do on error (e.g., 'If instance_id is not found, call get_workflow_status first to verify it exists').
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 49 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 40 | - | v1 |
No idempotency guarantees documented. start_workflow, advance_workflow, and resume_workflow are write operations, agents may retry on failure. Do these tools safely handle repeated calls with the same input, or will they create duplicates? This is undocumented.
Tool composition: advance_workflow requires the LLM to track instance_id and step_name across calls. The response from get_workflow_status must contain both to enable chaining, but this is not documented. High risk of agent confusion.
No pagination or limit controls on list_workflows. If there are hundreds of workflow definitions, the tool returns all of them, bloating the context window and degrading agent reasoning.