Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Spaces by Peakflo

by ai.peakflo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

workflow_update_node_parameter

Destructive

Replaces the value of one parameter on one step (node) in the open draft of a workflow, for example a prompt, code or setting. The old value is overwritten, 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>",
      "parameterId": "<parameterId>"
    },
    "name": "workflow_update_node_parameter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueNoInline UTF-8 parameter value for small updates
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node
workflowIdYesThe workflow ID
parameterIdYesThe ID of the parameter to update
expectedHashNoOptional SHA-256 hash from workflow_get_node_parameter to prevent overwriting stale content
versionLabelNoOptional label for this version (e.g. "Updated application code"). If omitted, defaults to "Version N".
valueStoredPathNoOptional workflow storage path from file_get_upload_url for large UTF-8 text replacements

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by explaining the consequence (the old value is overwritten) and the blast radius (persists only in the draft until a version save; does not execute the workflow). The phrase 'which is why it is marked destructive' mildly restates the annotation rather than adding new facts, and the optimistic-concurrency behavior of expectedHash is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the behavioral notes. Little waste, though the clause 'which is why it is marked destructive' is slightly self-referential filler that could be folded into the consequence statement.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essentials: draft-only scope, overwrite semantics, non-execution, and no third-party contact. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not say what comes back, nor does it point to the read tool needed for safe use of expectedHash.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only a light gloss on what a parameter value is ('a prompt, code or setting'); it does not discuss expectedHash conflict handling, valueStoredPath versus inline value, or versionLabel defaults.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Replaces the value of one parameter on one step (node) in the open draft of a workflow.' The scoping words 'one parameter' and 'one step (node)' and 'draft' cleanly separate it from workflow_update_node (whole node), workflow_apply_edits, and workflow_get_node_parameter (read side). An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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 description supplies useful context (change stays in the draft until a version is saved; it does not run the workflow or contact an app), which implies when this is the right call versus workflow_execute or workflow_save_version. However, it never names an alternative explicitly or states an exclusion such as 'to change a node's type/config use workflow_update_node' or 'read the current value with workflow_get_node_parameter first'.

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