Skip to main content
Glama

run_steps

Destructive

Run several edits in one call. Give an ordered list of steps, each {tool, args} naming a tool you already have (1 to 25 steps). These can't be steps; call them on their own: run_steps, apply_look, crop_for_platform, product_shot, recolor, remove_object, photo_effect, make_carousel, make_story, make_meme, make_grid, make_sticker, my_looks, batch. Each step sees the image as the one before left it, and keeps the time limit its tool has on its own; the whole sequence has a time budget that is checked before each step starts. Use it when you already know the steps and do not need to look in between; for exploratory work, call the tools one at a time. on_error: stop (default) halts at the first failing step; continue records the failure and runs the rest; rollback takes a checkpoint first and, on a failure, restores it and checks the restore worked (the image then has a NEW id, given in the result). Rollback is refused up front if any step is one of: open_photo, new_canvas, close_photo, export_photo, checkpoint, request_upload, and needs every step to name the same image. return: summary (default) gives one line per step plus the last step's full result; full gives every step's full result. If the last step returns a preview image, it is shown with the result; earlier steps' images are dropped. The whole sequence counts as one call.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepsYesThe steps, in order.
returnNoHow much of each step's result to return.summary
on_errorNoWhat to do when a step fails.stop

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses per-step time limits, a sequence-wide time budget checked before each step, the three on_error strategies with rollback checkpoint/restore behavior and new image ID, rollback refusal conditions, and return-mode behavior including preview image handling. This is unusually detailed behavioral context for a destructive, open-world tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose and constraints, and nearly every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity. It is dense and could be more scannable with formatting, but there is little redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and a complex compositional tool, the description covers return modes, error handling, time limits, image ID changes, and preview behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke run_steps correctly in normal and failure cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the enum labels: it explains the effects of stop/continue/rollback, the checkpoint and new image ID behavior, and how summary versus full affects returned results. That is meaningful semantic expansion for the on_error and return parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Run several edits in one call." It immediately clarifies the mechanism as an ordered list of steps, each naming a tool the agent already has, and distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools that cannot be composed.

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 gives an explicit rule: use it when you already know the steps and do not need to look in between, and for exploratory work call tools one at a time. It also names the sibling tools that cannot be steps, so the agent knows exactly which alternatives to use directly.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources