Skip to main content
Glama

Create workflow

create_workflow

Workflow authoring — create a BRAND-NEW workflow (mints the workflow + its version 1). A workflow composes blocks (api_call, sub_workflow, data) over $input and returns {content_type, output}. Fetch the definition's JSON Schema with get_workflow_definition_schema and author against it. The definition is statically validated BEFORE it is written: on error-severity findings nothing is minted (valid=false, created=false, findings returned) — so you never need a separate validate_workflow pass. On success the result also carries any advisory (warning/info) findings, e.g. a bare identifier that should be $-prefixed, or literal text better authored with language "literal". Pass publish=true to create and publish in one step. (To add a version to a workflow that already exists, use create_workflow_version.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesURL-safe slug, optionally hierarchical (e.g. reports/daily).
publishNoIf true, immediately publish the version this call creates (the common create-then-publish in one step). Defaults to false; omit to leave the version as an unpublished draft.
definitionYesThe workflow definition, as a JSON object. Fetch the exact JSON Schema it must satisfy with get_workflow_definition_schema and author against it (or copy an existing one with the get_*_version tool). The owning service validates it on submit.
descriptionNoWhat this workflow does.
display_nameNoHuman-readable name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugNo
validYes
createdYes
versionNo
findingsNo
publishedYes
workflow_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behaviors: static validation before write (on error-severity findings nothing is minted, valid=false, created=false, findings returned), advisory findings on success, and the publish flag effect. It also mentions the return shape of the workflow itself, adding context not captured by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries purpose. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains composition, validation, advisory findings, and the publish option, and ends with the sibling alternative. No redundancy or filler; it is efficiently structured for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, nested objects, output schema present), the description covers all essentials: what it does, how to author the definition, validation behavior, publish option, and when to use the alternative. The output schema is provided separately, so return value details are not required. The description is complete 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value by instructing to fetch the JSON Schema for the definition and author against it, and by explaining the publish parameter's default and effect. It also clarifies that the definition is the JSON object to be validated. These additions go beyond the schema, though not extensively, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('create a BRAND-NEW workflow (mints the workflow + its version 1)') and differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming create_workflow_version for existing workflows. It also explains the composition model (blocks over $input returning {content_type, output}), so an agent understands exactly what the tool does and how it differs from update or patch tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it's for brand-new workflows only, and the last sentence directs to create_workflow_version for adding versions to existing workflows. It also explains that validation is built-in, so no separate validate_workflow pass is needed, and describes the publish=true option for one-step creation and publishing. This leaves no ambiguity about selection among siblings.

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