Volanea

volanea_create_workflow

Idempotent

Create an event-triggered automation workflow from a node/edge graph. Created as a DRAFT — verify it with volanea_test_workflow, then activate explicitly via volanea_update_workflow { status: 'active' }. Idempotent by name. Triggers: "event:" (a product event sent to POST /v1/events or the volanea_track_event tool), "contact.created", "segment:enter:", "segment:exit:".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Workflow name. Acts as the idempotency key.
`graph`	Yes	Automation graph. Exactly one `trigger` node is the entry point; edges connect node ids. Node types and their `config`: - trigger: entry node, no config. - send_email: { templateId? } and/or { subject?, body? (HTML), fromEmail?, fromName? } — template fields fill anything omitted. - delay: { minutes?, hours?, days? } (defaults to 1 minute if all omitted). - wait_event: { event: "<eventName>", timeoutHours? (default 72) }. The unlabeled outgoing edge fires when the event arrives; an edge labeled "timeout" is taken on timeout. - condition: { conditions: <same condition tree as segments> }. Outgoing edges must be labeled "yes" and "no". - update_contact: { set: { <customField>: value, ... }, subscribed? }. - webhook: { url, payload? } — POSTs workflow/contact context to your URL (5s timeout). - exit: ends the walk. `x`/`y` are canvas coordinates for the dashboard editor — space nodes out (e.g. x = index * 260, y = 80).
`reentry`	No	Whether a contact can re-enter: never, after finishing a previous walk (default), or always.
`trigger`	Yes	e.g. "event:user.signed_up" or "contact.created".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Machine-readable failure code to branch on. Present only when success is false.
`data`	No	Present when success is true.
`error`	No	Human-readable failure reason. Present only when success is false.
`success`	Yes	False when the call failed; read `error` and `code` in that case.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint; the description adds substantial context beyond that — the tool produces a DRAFT rather than a live workflow, activation is a separate explicit step, and idempotency is keyed on name. It also enumerates the accepted trigger formats including segment enter/exit, which the agent could not infer.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then the lifecycle constraint, then trigger syntax. Every clause carries operational weight with no filler, despite the density.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the draft/activate state machine, idempotency key, and trigger formats — the pieces an agent needs to call this correctly for a complex nested-graph tool.

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 description coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top by expanding the trigger vocabulary beyond the schema's example (segment:enter/exit, event:<name> posted via /v1/events or volanea_track_event), though it does not restate the graph node semantics that live 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Create an event-triggered automation workflow from a node/edge graph") and it explicitly names the two sibling tools it hands off to (volanea_test_workflow, volanea_update_workflow). An agent can distinguish this from create_campaign_draft or create_segment 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 Guidelines5/5

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

States the full lifecycle: created as DRAFT, verify with volanea_test_workflow, then activate via volanea_update_workflow { status: 'active' }. It names both alternatives and the condition that selects each, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All Volanea tools Inspect

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

Need Help?