Skip to main content
Glama

ShowMeOnMap

by com.showmeonmap
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Save a workflow

save_workflow

Save a re-runnable, parameterized workflow: an ordered list of natural-language instructions (step 1 builds, later steps mutate). Wrap values in {braces} and declare them in params. Running it later re-executes the instructions on FRESH data and bills per step like typing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesWorkflow name.
stepsYesOrdered NL instructions. Step 1 builds the map; later steps mutate it. Wrap values in {braces} to declare parameters.
paramsNoDeclared parameters — every {slot} used in steps must be declared here.
rationaleNoOptional short label (≤300 chars) for the map edit history, e.g. "add wildfire layer". Omit it to send nothing beyond the tool arguments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / rationale / description
      Previous value: -"Short audit-log label (≤300 chars) stating the user-facing goal this call serves, e.g. \"add wildfire layer for the user's California query\". Required on every call. Stored in the operations log so map edits stay traceable — we never see your chat history."New value: +"Optional short label (≤300 chars) for the map edit history, e.g. \"add wildfire layer\". Omit it to send nothing beyond the tool arguments."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "steps",
-  "rationale"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "steps"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, but the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot: later runs re-execute against FRESH data and bill per step like a normal typed action. That cost/freshness disclosure is genuinely useful. It stops short of stating whether saving is versioned or overwritten.

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 dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it is, how to parameterize, what running it later does), with the core concept front-loaded and zero filler.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and even anticipates the downstream run behavior. It does not say what the save returns (e.g., a workflow id needed for run_workflow), which is the one meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already explain steps, params, and the brace-slot convention, so the description largely restates them. It reinforces the ordering rule (step 1 builds, later steps mutate) but adds no syntax or constraint not already in the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (save a workflow) and defines what the resource actually is: an ordered list of NL instructions, parameterized, re-runnable. This clearly separates it from list_workflows (read) and run_workflow (execute), which are the ambiguous siblings.

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?

It conveys the intent (capture a parameterized sequence so it can be re-run later) and implies the counterpart tool, run_workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to save, but the surrounding context makes the choice clear.

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

All ShowMeOnMap 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