withHuman

This connector has been deprecated

This is a duplicate of the actual entry deprecating this in favor of the original.

Preview pipeline

preview_pipeline

Read-only

Run a sample request through a set of blocks and report the outcome (approve, deny, human, or next), which block decided, its reason, and the escalation path a human exit would take. Each step lists a block the request reached, with the pipeline it belongs to; a branch or delegate reports enter or next for its condition, and end_of_branch when the request ran out of its blocks (for a delegate, out of the target pipeline). Delegate blocks expand to their targets' current active revisions, so the preview walks what a request would. Nothing is saved and no approval request is created. webhook blocks and other asynchronous kinds really call the endpoint or the model.

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": {
      "pipeline_key": "<pipeline_key>",
      "blocks": "<blocks>",
      "sample": "<sample>"
    },
    "name": "preview_pipeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`blocks`	Yes	The blocks to run the sample through, in order; the same shape update_pipeline takes. Pass the current blocks from get_pipeline to test what is active.
`sample`	Yes	The request to run through the blocks. Nothing is created: no approval request, no notification.
`pipeline_key`	Yes	The pipeline the blocks stand in for ('entry' for the entry pipeline). Delegate blocks expand to their targets' current active revisions.
`default_ask_agent_owner`	No	Whether the default asks the agent's owner first, as update_pipeline takes it.
`default_escalation_path`	No	The default escalation path to assume, as update_pipeline takes it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states nothing is saved, no approval request is created, delegates expand to live revisions, and – critically – webhook and other asynchronous blocks really call the endpoint or model. That last disclosure is the single most important operational fact and it is stated plainly. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't say what that means for retries/latency or whether the caller gets an error when an external call fails.

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 and dry-run guarantee, then output shape, then step semantics. It is a dense single paragraph, however, and the enter/next/end_of_branch explanation is compressed into one long clause that rewards a second read.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden – and it does: outcome, deciding block, reason, escalation path, and per-step reporting with enter/next/end_of_branch semantics. Combined with the dry-run and external-call caveats, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning for pipeline_key (delegate expansion, 'entry') and for how the blocks/sample pair is consumed, but nothing about default_ask_agent_owner or default_escalation_path 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 concrete verb and resource ('Run a sample request through a set of blocks and report the outcome') and names the exact output fields, which immediately separates it from update_pipeline (persist) and get_pipeline (read). The dry-run nature is unmistakable.

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?

Clear context is given: pass the current blocks from get_pipeline to test what is active, and the preview walks current active revisions. It never explicitly rules out alternatives (e.g., 'do not use this to actually submit a request; use X'), so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All withHuman 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?