Linked API

execute_custom_workflow

Execute a custom workflow definition. Pass a single action with actionType and its parameters at the top level. A single-action or array definition can alternatively be passed in definition. If this workflow is still running, do not retry this tool; retrying can duplicate any write actions inside the custom workflow.

Linked API actions are queued into a cloud-browser workflow and may take several minutes. The server returns immediately after starting the workflow with {status: 'pending'|'running', pendingReason, workflowId, operationName, message}. To retrieve the final result, call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId and operationName — it will long-poll until completion or the request budget elapses, then return either the final result or another in-progress snapshot. Do not retry the original tool while a workflow is still running; that creates duplicate queued work.

A pending workflow carries pendingReason: 'queued' means it is waiting its turn behind other work on the same account and will start within minutes. 'outsideWorkingHours' means the account has configured working hours and the workflow is parked until they reopen — possibly the next working day. In that case get_workflow_result returns immediately instead of polling, message states when the window opens, and you should report that to the user rather than looping.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "execute_custom_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`actionType`	No	The action type for a single-action workflow.
`definition`	No	A single-action or array workflow definition.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial asynchronous behaviour beyond that. However, it is so detailed about pending states and retries that it would score higher without the annotations; it still leaves out what permissions or account configuration are required to execute a custom workflow.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description front-loads the core action and then the async return contract, which is well ordered. It does repeat the anti-retry warning twice ('do not retry this tool' in paragraph 1 and 'Do not retry the original tool while a workflow is still running' in paragraph 3), making it longer than necessary.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description does important work by inlining the pending return shape (status, pendingReason, workflowId, operationName, message) and the two pendingReason values. It is complete for calling and following up on the tool, though it never enumerates valid actionTypes or states the auth/account prerequisites for executing a workflow.

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%, so the two parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds the meaningful routing rule that a single action's actionType and its parameters go at the top level while a full definition can alternatively be passed in 'definition', but that addition is modest relative to the coverage the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Execute a custom workflow definition') and contrasts itself with the sibling get_workflow_result, which is the retrieval counterpart. However, it never says what a 'custom workflow' contains or what action types are valid, so the resource scope remains partly opaque.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this tool to start, then call get_workflow_result with workflowId and operationName to finish. It also states a hard when-not-to-use rule (do not retry while running, because writes can be duplicated) and explains what to do when pendingReason is 'outsideWorkingHours'.

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

All Linked API 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.