Tessryx

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

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	URL-safe slug, optionally hierarchical (e.g. reports/daily).
`publish`	No	If 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 Defaults to false; omit to leave the version as an unpublished draft.
`definition`	Yes	The 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.
`description`	No	What this workflow does.
`display_name`	No	Human-readable name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No
`valid`	Yes
`created`	Yes
`version`	No
`findings`	No
`published`	Yes
`workflow_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the full behavior: it mints both the workflow and version 1, statically validates the definition before writing, returns created=false on error-severity findings, includes advisory findings on success, and supports publish=true for one-step publication. This goes far beyond the sparse annotations and gives the agent a clear model of side effects and failure modes.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then covers definition authoring, validation behavior, publish option, and the sibling alternative. Every sentence carries useful information, and the final parenthetical cleanly prevents confusion with the versioning tool.

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?

For a complex authoring tool, the description covers all essential aspects: how to author the definition, what validation means, what the result indicates on both success and failure, how to publish, and how to handle the versioning alternative. The output schema handles the exact return shape, so no critical information is missing.

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?

While the input schema has 100% coverage, the description adds important meaning around the publish parameter (create-and-publish in one step) and the definition parameter (must satisfy a JSON Schema, validated before writing). The mention of slug being URL-safe and optional publication defaulting to draft is also useful. It does not add much for display_name or description, but those are self-explanatory and schema-documented.

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 the tool creates a BRAND-NEW workflow and explicitly distinguishes it from create_workflow_version, which is for adding a version to an existing workflow. The verb 'create' plus the specific resource 'workflow' and the version 1 minting detail leave no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The description explicitly says to use create_workflow_version when adding a version to an existing workflow, and it tells the agent to use get_workflow_definition_schema before authoring. It also explains that the built-in static validation means a separate validate_workflow pass is unnecessary, which directly informs tool selection.

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

All Tessryx tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every resource family follows the same verb+noun pattern and each tool name uniquely identifies a resource-action pair (create_app vs create_app_version vs update_app vs publish_app). Closest overlaps like analyze_resource vs get_resource_graph and patch_datafile vs update_datafile are explicitly differentiated by their descriptions, so misselection risk is low despite the scale.

Naming Consistency5/5

Names are almost uniformly verb_noun snake_case with a consistent lifecycle vocabulary: create/get/update/delete/list/publish/unpublish/version. Minor outliers like whoami and run_schedule_now are idiomatic and do not break the predictability of the set.

Tool Count1/5

At 93 tools this far exceeds the calibration's 50+ extreme-mismatch case. The count is inflated by repeating create/get/update/delete/version/publish/unpublish across ten resource families; even though each family is systematic, the combined surface is very hard for an agent to navigate and keep in context.

Completeness4/5

Core CRUD/publish/version lifecycles are present for apps, workflows, endpoints, schedules, schemas, datafiles, and api templates, and dependency analysis is well covered. However, secret creation/updating, asset upload, custom-domain deletion, and version-range enumeration for several resource types are absent or left to the external dashboard, so agents hit a few manual dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?