Spaces by Peakflo

workflow_dry_run

Test a draft with mocked write effects and paired cases. Use when update checks need a mock comparison. Do not use as a real test: mocked nodes are not tested. Next step: check experiment_status for updates. Limits: not_run is not a pass; the paired check needs the update to score higher than the active version (a tie fails), and pairedNote says why it failed. Example: {"workflowId":"invoice-flow","paired":true}.

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": {
      "workflowId": "<workflowId>"
    },
    "name": "workflow_dry_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`paired`	No	Compare with the active version; default true
`versionId`	No	Candidate version UUID; latest if omitted
`workflowId`	Yes	The workflow ID
`sampleInputs`	No	JSON array of sample input objects

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is supplied structurally; the description adds genuine depth by warning that mocked nodes are not tested and that 'not_run is not a pass'. That limitation disclosure is valuable, but the description does not say what a run returns beyond pairedNote, how long it takes, or whether a dry run leaves any persisted artifact.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then the caveat, then the next step — a sensible order with no filler. It is telegraphic in places ('not_run is not a pass'), which costs a little readability, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it partially does by naming not_run status and pairedNote. For a run-style tool it still omits what a successful result looks like in full and any guidance on sampleInputs, leaving a small gap given the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all four parameters. The description goes beyond it by explaining what `paired` actually means operationally: the update must score higher than the active version and a tie fails, with pairedNote explaining the failure; the inline example also ties workflowId and paired together.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource plus the mechanism: 'Test a draft with mocked write effects and paired cases.' The clause 'Do not use as a real test: mocked nodes are not tested' behaviorally separates it from workflow_test_run, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the pairing.

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 an explicit use condition ('Use when update checks need a mock comparison') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use as a real test'), then routes forward with 'Next step: check experiment_status for updates.' When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the follow-up tool are all stated.

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

All Spaces by Peakflo 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.