Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SendIt

by io.github.Shree-git
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create Workflow

create_workflow

Create a new automation workflow.

Workflows consist of a trigger and a sequence of steps.

Trigger types: • manual - Run on demand • schedule - Cron-based schedule • event - Triggered by SendIt events (post published, mention detected, etc.) • webhook - Triggered by external webhook • connector_event - Triggered by connector-specific events

Step types: • connector_action - Execute a connector operation • connector_operation - Alias of connector_action • agent_invoke - Run an AI agent • condition - Conditional control step (skip subsequent steps) • delay - Wait for a duration • http_request - Outbound HTTP request • transform - Transform data between steps • notify - Send notification (email, Slack, etc.)

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "triggerType": "<triggerType>",
      "triggerConfig": "<triggerConfig>",
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "create_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesWorkflow name
stepsYesWorkflow steps in execution order
activeNoActivate workflow immediately (default: false)
descriptionNoWorkflow description
triggerTypeYesTrigger type
triggerConfigYesTrigger configuration (cron expression, event type, etc.)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds behavioral context by listing trigger/step types, but doesn't go into consequences like validation, idempotency, or error conditions. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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?

The description is well-structured with bullet points for trigger and step types, making it easy to scan. It is somewhat long but appropriate for a complex tool with many enum options. Every sentence adds information about workflow composition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the high-level structure but lacks operational details for constructing step configs (e.g., required fields for http_request, condition, transform) and triggerConfig formats (e.g., cron syntax, event names). Since config is a free-form object in the schema, the description should carry more of the burden, but it only provides type names. This leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the enum options for triggerType and step types (e.g., 'manual - Run on demand', 'schedule - Cron-based schedule'), going beyond the raw schema. It doesn't explain triggerConfig or step config structures in depth, but the high-level mapping helps.

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 description clearly states 'Create a new automation workflow' and explains that workflows consist of a trigger and steps. This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_workflow, delete_workflow, and trigger_workflow.

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?

The description provides explicit context on when to use the tool by enumerating trigger types and step types, which covers the main usage scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or compare it with alternatives beyond the obvious create/update/delete distinction.

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

All SendIt 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