workflows-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose with no overlap: create_workflow, get_workflow, update_workflow, delete_workflow, list_workflows, get_workflow_versions, rollback_workflow, start_workflow, and run_workflow_step. The descriptions clearly differentiate between CRUD operations, version management, and execution control, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as create_workflow, delete_workflow, and list_workflows. This predictability enhances readability and usability, with no deviations or mixed conventions across the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for workflow management, covering creation, retrieval, updating, deletion, listing, version control, and execution. Each tool serves a clear and necessary function without redundancy or excessive complexity, fitting the domain appropriately.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for workflow lifecycle management, including CRUD operations (create, get, update, delete), version handling (get_versions, rollback), listing, and execution control (start, run_step). There are no obvious gaps, ensuring agents can perform all essential tasks without dead ends.
Average 3.1/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'get' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, error handling for invalid IDs, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe invocation.
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 a single, efficient sentence that's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool with siblings and potential complexity, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 compensate. It mentions 'by ID', which adds meaning to the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain the ID format, where to obtain it, or constraints. With 1 undocumented parameter, this is insufficient to guide effective use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific workflow by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (workflow), but it's vague about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, fetch details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_workflows' by specifying 'by ID', but lacks specificity on the scope of information returned.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when a specific workflow ID is known, but doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it (e.g., for listing workflows), or compare to siblings like 'get_workflow_versions' for version-specific details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional version increment,' hinting at mutability and version control, but lacks critical details: required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update an existing workflow') and adds a key feature ('optional version increment'). There's no wasted text, though it could be more structured with brief usage hints.
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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, parameter details beyond basics, or output expectations, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics: it implies 'id' identifies the workflow and 'updates' contains modifications, and mentions 'increment_version' as optional. However, it doesn't explain the structure of 'updates' (a nested object with no schema), acceptable values, or the effect of version increment, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing workflow'), specifying it modifies an existing entity rather than creating a new one. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_workflow' by focusing on updates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update-related tools like 'rollback_workflow'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'rollback_workflow' for version management or 'create_workflow' for new workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filtering and sorting', which hints at query capabilities, but fails to describe critical traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned (e.g., workflow details, IDs). For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all workflows') and adds key modifiers ('with optional filtering and sorting'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.
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 the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, error handling), parameter usage, and output format, which are crucial for an agent to invoke this tool effectively. The conciseness comes at the expense of necessary context.
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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'optional filtering and sorting', which maps to the two parameters ('filter' and 'sort'), but adds minimal semantic value—it doesn't explain what fields can be filtered (e.g., tags, dates) or sorted (e.g., by name, success rate), leaving the agent to infer from the schema structure alone. This insufficiently compensates for the low coverage.
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 the verb ('List') and resource ('workflows'), making the purpose evident. It also mentions optional filtering and sorting, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_workflow' or 'get_workflow_versions', which might also retrieve workflow information, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_workflow' (likely for single workflows) and 'get_workflow_versions' (for version history), there's no indication of context or exclusions, such as whether this is for bulk retrieval or initial exploration. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('rollback') but doesn't explain critical aspects like whether this requires admin permissions, if it's destructive to current workflow data, what happens to running instances, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior safely.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose, though it could benefit from additional context given the complexity of the operation.
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 the complexity of a rollback operation (potentially destructive), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on prerequisites, side effects, error handling, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
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 compensate by explaining parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. The three parameters (workflow_id, target_version, reason) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their semantics unclear—e.g., what format target_version expects or if reason is optional/logged.
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 the action ('rollback') and resource ('workflow to a previous version'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_workflow' or 'get_workflow_versions', which could have overlapping functionality or be used in similar contexts.
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. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used after detecting errors, for testing, or as an alternative to updating or deleting workflows. The presence of siblings like 'update_workflow' and 'get_workflow_versions' suggests potential overlap, but no explicit usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'step-by-step control', hinting at interactive or incremental execution, but fails to detail critical aspects such as permissions required, whether it's read-only or destructive, rate limits, session management, or what happens on errors. For a tool that likely involves execution state, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Start a workflow execution session') and adds a key feature ('with step-by-step control'). There is no wasted text, and it effectively communicates the essential idea without redundancy or fluff.
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 the complexity of starting a workflow (likely involving execution, state, and inputs), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and error handling, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool confidently in varied contexts.
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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the 'id' (e.g., what it refers to, format) or 'inputs' (e.g., expected structure, examples). It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving both parameters semantically unclear to the agent.
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 the action ('Start') and resource ('workflow execution session'), specifying it provides 'step-by-step control'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_workflow_step' (single step) and 'create_workflow' (creation vs. execution). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'rollback_workflow' or 'update_workflow', which keeps it from a perfect score.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for starting workflows with control, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow), exclusions (e.g., when not to use it), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'run_workflow_step' or 'list_workflows'. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all available versions', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it returns metadata, pagination details, error conditions, or permissions required. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the complexity of listing versions (which may involve metadata, ordering, or access controls), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what 'versions' entail, the return format, or potential limitations, leaving critical gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter 'workflow_id' is used to identify the workflow, but doesn't explain its format, constraints, or how it relates to the output. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.
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 the action ('List') and resource ('all available versions of a workflow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workflow' or 'list_workflows', which might also retrieve workflow-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workflow' or 'list_workflows'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing workflow, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the deletion is 'soft' and reversible, which is a key behavioral trait beyond basic function. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions, making it adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('soft delete a workflow') and adds necessary context ('can be recovered') without any waste. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the soft delete behavior but misses parameter details, return values, and full usage context. For a mutation tool with siblings, more information would be needed for full completeness.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'id' parameter at all, leaving it undocumented. However, with only one parameter and no schema details, the baseline is high; the description adds value by explaining the soft delete nature, but doesn't clarify parameter usage.
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 the action ('soft delete') and resource ('a workflow'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_workflow' (if it existed) by specifying it's a soft delete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'update_workflow' or 'rollback_workflow'), which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'can be recovered,' suggesting this tool should be used when temporary removal is needed versus permanent deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'update_workflow' or provide clear exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's an execution tool (implying mutation), requires following specific rules (e.g., no commentary, immediate progression), and outlines output behavior (only when required). It doesn't cover aspects like error handling or permissions, but provides substantial context.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point rules, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. It's appropriately sized, though the rule list could be slightly condensed without losing clarity.
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?
Given the complexity of workflow execution, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good behavioral rules but lacks parameter explanations and details on return values or error cases. It's partially complete but has notable gaps for a tool with 3 parameters and mutation implications.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 3 parameters (execution_id, step_result, next_step_needed). It mentions 'step-by-step instructions' but doesn't explain how parameters relate to execution, leaving semantics unclear and failing to compensate for the schema gap.
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 the verb 'execute' and resource 'next step in an active workflow session', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_workflow' or 'rollback_workflow', which might handle workflow execution in different contexts.
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 provides explicit usage rules (e.g., 'DO NOT provide commentary between workflow steps', 'Move immediately to the next step after completing the current one'), specifying when and how to use this tool versus alternatives. This offers clear operational guidance beyond basic functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the workflow structure, available actions, step details, template variables, dependency management, performance features, and best practices. This covers creation behavior, error handling, and operational context, though it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or specific side effects like data persistence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and not front-loaded. While it starts with the purpose, it then includes extensive sections (WORKFLOW STRUCTURE, AVAILABLE ACTIONS, STEP STRUCTURE, etc.) that are more like documentation than a concise tool description. Many sentences, such as detailed examples and best practices, could be trimmed or moved elsewhere, reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (nested object parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral context, and usage guidelines thoroughly. However, it lacks information on return values or error responses, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and 1 parameter (a nested object 'workflow'), so the description must fully compensate. It provides extensive semantics: it details the workflow structure (name, description, goal, version, tags, inputs, outputs, required_tools, steps, strict_dependencies), step structure with examples, and best practices. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 starts with a clear, specific statement: 'Create a new workflow with specified steps and configuration.' This explicitly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('workflow'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_workflow' or 'delete_workflow'. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through its detailed structure and best practices, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_workflow' or 'start_workflow'. It provides context on workflow creation but lacks direct guidance on tool selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![workflows-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FiveOhhWon/workflows-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FiveOhhWon/workflows-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![workflows-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FiveOhhWon/workflows-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FiveOhhWon/workflows-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/FiveOhhWon/workflows-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server