Onplana

test_run_workflow

DestructiveIdempotent

Test a workflow on one task. PRO+ feature (automations). mode "rehearsal" writes nothing: it returns the steps the workflow would take on the task and what each would do. mode "live" (the default) writes a WorkflowRun with workflowName suffixed "(test)" and runs the graph end-to-end for real, returning the new runId (list_workflow_runs monitors it). taskId names the task, which must be in the workflow's project (any visible project for an org-wide workflow); without it the newest task in scope is used. Permission: automation.manage on the workflow's project (or org MANAGER+ for org-wide workflows).

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>"
    },
    "name": "test_run_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No
`taskId`	No
`workflowId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / mode

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "rehearsal",
+    "live"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / taskId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

AddedJun 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a write with destructive/openWorld hints, but the description goes well beyond them: rehearsal is side-effect free, live persists a WorkflowRun whose name carries a '(test)' suffix, the call returns the new runId, and it names the exact permission required (automation.manage, or org MANAGER+ for org-wide workflows). The one soft spot is that live mode 'returns the new runId' implies a fresh run per call, which sits awkwardly with idempotentHint=true; the description does not reconcile that.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

It is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then layers mode, task scoping and permission in a sensible order, with no filler sentences. It is, however, quite compressed with stacked parentheticals, which costs a little readability against a strict conciseness ideal.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing both return shapes (the rehearsed steps, or the new runId). Combined with the permission requirement and the PRO+ feature note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: mode is explained per enum value with a stated default, taskId is given scoping rules (must be in the workflow's project, any visible project for org-wide workflows, newest task in scope otherwise). Only workflowId is left implicit, which is acceptable given the tool name and required-parameter list.

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?

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Test a workflow on one task') and the description immediately distinguishes this from the surrounding workflow tool family by explaining that it fires a real/rehearsed run rather than creating or listing workflows. An agent can separate it from get_workflow, list_workflow_runs and create_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 Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly routes between the two modes: rehearsal 'writes nothing' and returns the would-be steps, live 'runs the graph end-to-end for real'. It states which mode is the default, when taskId can be omitted (newest task in scope), and points to list_workflow_runs for monitoring, so the agent knows both the alternative action and the follow-up tool.

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

All Onplana 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.