run_workflow
Execute a predefined multi-step workflow across oracles.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional query for law_change_response workflow | |
| workflow | No | Workflow ID from workflow_library | |
| entity_id | No |
conductor
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'execute', implying mutation, but does not describe side effects, duration, permissions, or return values. This leaves the agent underinformed about the tool's impact.
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 a single concise sentence, well front-loaded. It could be slightly improved by structuring information, but it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and 15 sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It fails to explain the return value, the purpose of 'entity_id', or differentiate from related tools like 'workflow_library'.
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 coverage is 67%, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain 'entity_id' (which lacks description in schema) nor provide context for 'query' and 'workflow' beyond their schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute a predefined multi-step workflow' which identifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'workflow_library' which is related but distinct. The phrase 'across oracles' is somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to obtain a workflow ID from 'workflow_library' first, or context about when execution is appropriate.
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.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but health_check, oracle_status, and readiness_dashboard overlap in providing health/status information, which could cause confusion for an agent. The descriptions help differentiate their scope (e.g., oracle_status for 16 DORA oracles, readiness_dashboard for 23 oracles + tool count).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use consistent snake_case, lowercase format, and follow a predictable verb_noun or noun_noun pattern (e.g., board_briefing, react_to_event, onboard_entity). No mixed conventions or irregular naming.
Tool Count5/5
16 tools is appropriate for a DORA compliance and monitoring server covering onboarding, health checks, assessments, gap analysis, remediation, event reactions, and workflows. Each tool has a defined role, and the count is well-scoped for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core compliance workflows: onboarding, assessments, health status, gap analysis, remediation planning, event reaction, and syncing. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a tool to manually update individual compliance items, but the workflow and sync tools compensate. Overall, the coverage is strong.