tg-agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Run recipe

tg_run_recipe

Runs a named recipe with parameters as a background workflow and returns a workflow ID, letting you start automated tasks without waiting for completion.

Instructions

Run a recipe by name with parameters. It runs in the background as its own workflow and returns its workflow_id.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "tg_run_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`params`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds the genuinely non-obvious trait that execution is asynchronous, spawning its own workflow and returning a workflow_id. It omits failure behavior (unknown recipe name, invalid params) and whether the spawned workflow can be cancelled, but the async contract is the critical disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though it edges toward under-specification given the undefined params object.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states that a workflow_id is returned, which is the key return value. However, for a tool that takes an opaque nested params object and kicks off a background job, the agent is left without the semantics of params or the expected follow-up (polling the workflow).

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%, so the description must carry the burden for both parameters and largely does not. It says 'by name' (matching the required string) and 'with parameters', but the nested `params` object is recipe-specific and completely undefined — no format, no key names, no example.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Run a recipe by name') and notes it executes with parameters, which distinguishes it from sibling tg_list_recipes. It stops short of explaining what a 'recipe' is, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of how to discover valid recipe names, and no pointer to alternatives such as tg_list_recipes for enumeration or tg_wait_tasks for retrieving results. The agent must infer all routing.

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