Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Spaces by Peakflo

by ai.peakflo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

workflow_update_node

Destructive

Changes one existing step (node) in the open draft of a workflow: its name, inputs, outputs, parameters or position. The fields you send replace the step's current values, which is why it is marked destructive. The change stays in the draft until a version is saved. It does not run the workflow or contact any connected app.

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>",
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>",
      "updates": "<updates>"
    },
    "name": "workflow_update_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to update
updatesYesJSON string of the partial node data to update
workflowIdYesThe workflow ID
versionLabelNoOptional label for this version (e.g. "Updated AI prompt"). If omitted, defaults to "Version N".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining WHY destructiveHint is true — the fields sent replace the step's current values — and by disclosing persistence scope: changes live only in the draft until a version is saved. It also rules out side effects (no workflow run, no connected-app calls), which is exactly the context an agent needs before mutating.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope, then the replace/destructive rationale, then persistence, then exclusions. No filler and no repetition of the annotation block.

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?

Complete for a draft-scoped mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema: what changes, how it changes, where the change lives, and what it does not do are all covered. It could add what happens on an invalid nodeId or how versionLabel interacts with the draft, but those are minor gaps.

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, but the description adds real meaning by enumerating the concrete node fields that go inside the opaque "updates" JSON string (name, inputs, outputs, parameters, position) and by clarifying replace-vs-merge semantics. It says nothing about workflowId, nodeId or versionLabel beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Changes one existing step (node) in the open draft of a workflow") and enumerates exactly what is mutable: name, inputs, outputs, parameters, position. The word "existing" plus the draft scoping cleanly separates it from workflow_add_node and from whole-workflow edits.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Usage context is clear: edit one node in the open draft, and it explicitly excludes running the workflow or contacting connected apps. It does not route the agent between near-siblings such as workflow_update_node_parameter (single parameter) or workflow_apply_edits (batch edits), which would have made this a 5.

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 toolsInspect
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