Extend MCP

Update a workflow's draft

update_workflow

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a workflow's mutable draft (workflows group): rename it and/or replace the entire draft step graph (hand-editing steps? call get_documentation with https://docs.extend.ai/workflows/configuring-workflows.md first). Deployed versions are immutable and unaffected — runs pinned to them keep working.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Workflow ID (workflow_...).
`name`	No	New display name.
`steps`	No	Replaces the whole DRAFT step graph. Step graph (max 100 steps), TRIGGER → PARSE first. Every step needs { type, name }; "name" is REQUIRED and is what other steps route to. Route via next, an ARRAY of objects: linear steps (TRIGGER/PARSE/EXTRACT) use next: [{ step: "<target name>" }]; CLASSIFY/SPLIT branch with next: [{ step, classificationId }] (classificationId = a classification id from the config, not its type). TRIGGER routes to exactly one PARSE. Types: TRIGGER, PARSE, EXTRACT, CLASSIFY, SPLIT, MERGE_EXTRACT, CONDITIONAL, CONDITIONAL_EXTRACT, EXTERNAL_DATA_VALIDATION, WEBHOOK_RESPONSE, RULE_VALIDATION, VALIDATION, ROUTER, HUMAN_REVIEW, COLLECT, FILE_CONVERSION. EXTRACT/CLASSIFY/SPLIT need a config with exactly one of a saved ref or inline config (EXTRACT: config.extractor {id,version} or config.extractorConfig with REQUIRED schema; CLASSIFY: config.classifier {id,version} or config.classifierConfig); next is only allowed once config is set. Classifier/splitter refs can't be "latest" — use semver or "draft". The rules here are a summary — before authoring a step graph by hand, call get_documentation with https://docs.extend.ai/workflows/configuring-workflows.md and follow it.
`environment`	Yes	"TEST" = the Test (development) environment, "PRODUCTION" = live. Must match a granted target from get_me (an API key pins one environment).
`workspaceId`	Yes	Target workspace (ws_...). Must be a granted workspace — get_me lists the accepted values.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`createdAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`draftVersion`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal destructiveness, idempotency, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context: the update replaces the entire draft graph, deployed versions remain unaffected, and pinned runs keep working. This gives the agent a clear mental model of side effects.

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 dense and front-loaded with purpose and scope. The step-graph authoring details are lengthy but necessary given the open schema. Minor redundancy exists because the get_documentation prerequisite appears twice, but the overall structure earns its length.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool, the description covers scope, side effects, prerequisites, step-graph constraints, and routing semantics. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and avoid common authoring mistakes.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the step parameter schema is mostly open (additionalProperties). The description compensates richly: it explains `next` routing arrays, `classificationId`, config refs vs inline configs, step ordering, the 100-step limit, and the restriction on classifier/splitter 'latest' refs. This is far beyond what the schema alone communicates.

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: 'Update a workflow's mutable draft (workflows group)' and specifies exactly what can be changed ('rename it and/or replace the entire draft step graph'). It also differentiates the tool from deployed-version tools by noting deployed versions are immutable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions (modify the draft before deployment) and when-not-to-use boundaries ('Deployed versions are immutable and unaffected — runs pinned to them keep working'). It also provides a prerequisite: call get_documentation before hand-authoring a step graph.

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

All Extend MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?