Summer

This connector has been deprecated

This was a duplicate manual listing. Use Summer’s official listing, imported from the official MCP Registry. Summer’s MCP server remains active at https://api.gosummer.ai/mcp. Setup and documentation: https://gosummer.ai/docs/mcp-clients.

Save, retire or restore a task template with its expected revision

summer_workflows_save

Destructive

Save, retire or restore a task template with its expected revision. Changes no case or effect authority.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company": "<company>",
      "environment": "<environment>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "expected_revision": "<expected_revision>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "description": "<description>",
      "instructions": "<instructions>",
      "retired": "<retired>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "summer_workflows_save"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`reason`	Yes
`company`	Yes
`retired`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`environment`	Yes
`instructions`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No	Reuse the same key when retrying the same change
`expected_revision`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with "Changes no case or effect authority," which limits the blast radius. It does not, however, state what gets overwritten (name/description/instructions appear to be replaced wholesale), what happens on a revision mismatch, or that a 'reason' is recorded for audit.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation and its scope declaration front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient but leans on under-specification rather than genuine brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 10-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and near-zero schema descriptions, two short sentences are insufficient. An agent can't reliably call this without knowing 9 required fields' semantics, the optimistic-concurrency contract, or the error behavior on stale revisions.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 10% (solely idempotency_key), so the description must compensate and it does not. The single most important parameter, expected_revision, is echoed in the title but never explained (where to obtain it, what a mismatch does), and retired, reason, environment, and the replace-vs-merge semantics of name/description/instructions are all undocumented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

It uses a clear set of verbs (save/retire/restore) against a specific resource (a task template) and names the concurrency control ("with its expected revision"). It doesn't differentiate itself from the other siblings in the workflows family (list, history, request_text), so an agent must infer that this is the write counterpart.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The three modes (save, retire, restore) imply when you'd choose each one, and "Changes no case or effect authority" hints at a scope boundary. But nothing tells the agent when to prefer this tool over summer_workflows_list / summer_workflows_history, or what prerequisite is needed (fetching the current revision first).

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

All Summer 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?