Fetch Hive

Deploy a workflow

deploy_workflow

Destructive

Publish the workflow as it is now to its deployment, which schedules, the API and webhooks run. The first deploy creates the deployment; later ones add a version only when the steps changed. Call it first without approved to see what would change, tell the person, and call again with approved: true only after they say yes.

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": {
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>"
    },
    "name": "deploy_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`approved`	No	true only after the person has agreed to deploy.
`workflow_id`	Yes	The workflow to deploy.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the first deploy creates the deployment, subsequent deploys add a version only when steps changed (near-idempotent in effect), and an unapproved call acts as a preview. It does not discuss permissions, blast radius on live schedules/webhooks, or what the preview returns.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, then versioning nuance, then the confirmation protocol. No filler or restated title.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it does, how deployment/versioning behaves, and the required human-approval flow. The main omission is what the unapproved preview actually returns or whether the preview itself has any side effects.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including 'true only after the person has agreed to deploy.' The description reinforces the approved gate as a preview/confirm toggle, which adds mild procedural meaning but no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 description states a specific verb and resource — 'Publish the workflow as it is now to its deployment' — and explains the effect: schedules, the API, and webhooks run from it. It also distinguishes itself behaviorally from a mere save by noting that a version is added only when steps changed. It never names a sibling (e.g. update_workflow or run_workflow) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of the top score.

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 prescribes an explicit two-call protocol: first call without 'approved' to preview changes, surface them to the person, and only re-call with approved: true after they consent. This is a concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-proceed rule rather than an implied one.

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

All Fetch Hive tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?