Skip to main content
Glama

delete_workflow

Remove a workflow while keeping recovery options available. Use this tool to temporarily disable or archive workflow processes in the workflows-mcp system.

Instructions

Soft delete a workflow (can be recovered)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the delete_workflow tool: parses input, calls storage.delete(id), handles errors, returns success message with workflow_id.
    private async deleteWorkflow(args: unknown) {
      const parsed = DeleteWorkflowSchema.parse(args);
      
      const success = await this.storage.delete(parsed.id);
      if (!success) {
        throw new Error(`Workflow not found: ${parsed.id}`);
      }
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify({
              success: true,
              workflow_id: parsed.id,
              message: 'Workflow deleted successfully (soft delete)',
            }, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Zod schema defining input for delete_workflow: requires 'id' string.
    const DeleteWorkflowSchema = z.object({
      id: z.string(),
    });
  • src/index.ts:272-276 (registration)
    Tool registration in getTools() method: defines name, description, and inputSchema for delete_workflow.
    {
      name: 'delete_workflow',
      description: 'Soft delete a workflow (can be recovered)',
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(DeleteWorkflowSchema),
    },
  • src/index.ts:130-131 (registration)
    Dispatch registration in CallToolRequestSchema handler switch statement: routes 'delete_workflow' calls to deleteWorkflow method.
    case 'delete_workflow':
      return await this.deleteWorkflow(args);
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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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