Skip to main content
Glama

Enable or Disable ProteinIQ Workflow

set_workflow_enabled
Destructive

Enable or disable a published workflow. Requires manage access. Does not start a run.

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": {
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>",
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "set_workflow_enabled"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enabledYes
workflow_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/destructive profile, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the manage-access authorization requirement and the clarification that enabling does not trigger execution. It does not explain what disabling does to in-flight runs or whether the toggle is reversible, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by the prerequisite and the key behavioral exclusion. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, access, and the non-triggering behavior, which is the minimum viable set. It leaves gaps around parameter semantics and the consequences of disabling, so it is adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. It implies a workflow and an enabled state but adds no meaning about the workflow_id format or exactly what enabled=true/false affects, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb pair (enable/disable) and resource (published workflow), and explicitly distinguishes the tool from start_workflow by noting it does not start a run. An agent can identify the operation and its scope without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Requires manage access') and a key exclusion ('Does not start a run'), which distinguishes it from start_workflow. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly or saying when to prefer disabling versus canceling a run, so not a 5.

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