Create, list, execute, edit, or delete Raycast workflows, defining triggers and steps such as commands, scripts, API calls, and notifications.
Create and manage Raycast workflows and automations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Workflow name | |
| steps | No | Workflow steps to execute | |
| action | Yes | Workflow action to perform | |
| trigger | No | How the workflow should be triggered |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. It is silent on the fact that 'delete' is destructive, that 'execute' runs arbitrary workflow steps with side effects, what permissions are required, or whether changes are reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, but for a five-action CRUD-plus-execute tool this brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. The single sentence does not earn its place against the tool's actual complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A multi-action tool spanning create, list, execute, edit, and delete with no annotations and no output schema needs far more than one sentence. Nothing is said about which parameters are required for which action (e.g., name for create, steps for execute) or what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both enums (action, trigger) are self-documenting, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about the action/trigger/name/steps relationship beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (create/manage) and resource (Raycast workflows and automations). The resource name alone separates it cleanly from siblings like raycast_search, raycast_clipboard, and raycast_system, though 'manage' remains an umbrella term that hides the five distinct operations the tool actually performs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance at all: it never explains when to pick this over a sibling, nor when to choose each of the create/list/execute/edit/delete actions. The only hint of usage is the verb 'manage', which the agent must infer from the schema enum.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.