Skip to main content
Glama

uplika

by com.uplika
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check an automation document

validate_automation
Read-only

Check a flow document against the rules for one account without saving it: node shapes, references, the 24-hour window, and features still in Meta review. Answers problems with paths; an empty list means put_automation would accept it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docYesOne automation flow. triggers start it, nodes are the steps, start names the first node. Waiting is not a node: a send node with buttons and next: null waits for the person to tap one, and that button's next continues. A loop must pass through such a wait.
accountIdYesThe connected account the flow would run on.
workspaceIdNoWhich workspace this is for. Only needed when the account has more than one — the error tells you the ids when it matters. Leave it out if it is already decided; do not ask the person again.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / doc / properties / triggers / items / properties / post / description
      Previous value: -"comment triggers: { postId } | \"any\" | \"next\". \"next\" binds to the next post you publish."New value: +"comment triggers: { postId } | \"any\" | \"next\". postId may also be the post's link (the server resolves it to the uplika post id when saving). \"next\" binds to the next post you publish."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / doc / properties / triggers / items / properties / publicReplyAi
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Instead of publicReply: the AI writes the public reply for each comment, after the flow ran. Told a DM was sent only when the private reply went out.",
+  "properties": {
+    "instruction": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "instruction"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it confirms no persistence, lists the rule families enforced, and defines the return contract (problems with paths, empty list = acceptable). It does not state whether validation is deterministic or how large documents are handled, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first front-loads what is checked and the non-saving constraint, the second delivers the return semantics and the routing to put_automation. Every clause earns its place.

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, and the description compensates by defining the result shape (problems with paths) and the success signal (empty list). Combined with a richly documented nested input schema and annotations that cover the safety profile, 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% and all three parameters carry their own descriptions in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only hints at the account scope ('against the rules for one account') and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check a flow document') and enumerates exactly what is validated (node shapes, references, 24-hour window, Meta-review features). This clearly separates it from put_automation/create_automation/update_automation siblings, which persist rather than check.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as a non-saving dry run and names put_automation as the operation it gates ('an empty list means put_automation would accept it'), so the agent knows when to reach for it. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., post-save validation) or naming create_automation/update_automation as the actual apply paths.

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

All uplika 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