composer

run_workflow

Run a workflow Composer planned for you and get the synthesized result. PAID via x402 — one payment replaces the multi-step work you'd otherwise do yourself.

Pass the plan_id from plan_workflow. This call is payment-gated: it returns an x402 402 carrying the final live-checked price (normally ≈ plan_workflow's indicative quote); your x402 client pays it (settled on Base), and Composer then executes the multi-step workflow — paying each provider from its own wallet — and returns the synthesized answer. You pay Composer's price for the outcome (principal/reseller); the 402 is authoritative, and a run that fails after payment is refunded. agent_id is optional — identify yourself for attribution if you like.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan_id`	Yes
`agent_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: payment via x402 with live-checked price, execution of multi-step workflow, provider payments from Composer's wallet, refunds for failed runs, and optional agent attribution. This is comprehensive.

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?

The description is clear and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It contains necessary details about payment and parameters, but is slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (payment, execution, refunds) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key points: how to use, payment process, and failure handling. It does not detail the output format but this is acceptable as output schema exists.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains 'plan_id' as the output of 'plan_workflow' and 'agent_id' as optional attribution. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description states 'Run a workflow Composer planned for you and get the synthesized result' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'plan_workflow' by focusing on execution after planning.

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?

The description explicitly ties usage to having a 'plan_id' from 'plan_workflow' and explains the payment-gated nature. It implies when to use (after planning) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the sibling.

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

All composer tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: plan_workflow handles scoping and pricing, while run_workflow executes the paid workflow. There is no functional overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow the exact same verb_noun pattern (plan_workflow, run_workflow), providing a predictable and clear naming convention.

Tool Count4/5

With only two tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose of planning and executing multi-step tasks. The tool count fits the service model; additional tools for cancellation or status polling could be added but are not essential.

Completeness3/5

The core workflow of plan-then-run is covered, but there are minor gaps: no way to cancel a plan, list past workflows, or check status without running. The server lacks lifecycle management beyond the primary actions.

Resources

Need Help?