Nodes2Cloud

Update workflow

update_workflow

Destructive

Replace a workflow's saved draft: any of name, nodes and edges you pass overwrite the stored ones whole (send the complete node and edge lists, not a patch). Requires the updatedAt from your last get_workflow or create_workflow; if someone edited it since, this returns conflict and changes nothing, so re-read and retry. Does not touch what is deployed. Returns the saved workflow with its new updatedAt.

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>",
      "updatedAt": "<updatedAt>"
    },
    "name": "update_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New name. Omit to keep it.
`edges`	No	The complete new edge list. Omit to keep the current edges.
`nodes`	No	The complete new node list. Omit to keep the current nodes.
`updatedAt`	Yes	The workflow's `updatedAt` exactly as last returned to you.
`workflowId`	Yes	The workflow's id, from list_workflows or create_workflow.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`edges`	Yes
`nodes`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`ownerId`	Yes
`settings`	Yes
`createdAt`	Yes
`createdBy`	No
`updatedAt`	Yes
`authoredVia`	No
`lastEditedBy`	No
`authoredViaClient`	No
`deployedWorkerUrl`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / createdBy

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "email": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "userId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "userId",
+    "email"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / lastEditedBy

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "email": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "userId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "userId",
+    "email"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 28, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive/not-idempotent annotations, it discloses the exact destruction model (passed node/edge lists replace the stored ones whole), the optimistic-concurrency contract via `updatedAt`, the failure mode (conflict, no changes applied), and the deployment side-effect boundary. This is the context an agent needs before issuing a destructive overwrite.

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 sentences, each load-bearing, with the replacement semantics and required token front-loaded before failure handling. No restatement of schema or title.

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?

For a destructive five-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers overwrite scope, concurrency precondition, conflict outcome, and confirms the response shape (saved workflow + new `updatedAt`) without duplicating the output schema itself.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new semantics: nodes/edges are whole-list replacements rather than patches, and `updatedAt` acts as a concurrency token, not just metadata. It doesn't restate the optional/omit-to-keep behavior already in the schema, which is appropriate.

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 ('Replace a workflow's saved draft') plus scope boundaries — whole-value overwrite, not a patch, and explicitly not touching the deployed version. An agent can distinguish this from deploy_workflow or rollback_workflow 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear preconditions ('Requires the `updatedAt` from your last get_workflow or create_workflow') and recovery guidance ('returns `conflict` ... re-read and retry'), plus the submit-only-when-replacing rule. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for publishing changes, which is an explicit non-goal but only implied ('Does not touch what is deployed').

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

All Nodes2Cloud 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.