Run a scheduled workflow immediately by providing its schedule ID, bypassing normal timing to execute it on demand.
Manually trigger a scheduled workflow immediately
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | No | Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default | |
| schedule_id | Yes | The schedule ID to trigger |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / namespaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default",
+ "enum": [
+ "default"
+ ],
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.9.0v1.5.0v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says a run is triggered. It is silent on whether the trigger is fire-and-forget or returns a run handle, whether the schedule's next run time is reset, and whether permissions or a paused schedule block the call.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and immediacy qualifier; nothing extraneous and nothing buried.
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?
For a mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling-context notes, the description is too thin: an agent cannot tell what the call returns or whether it interacts with pause/unpause state. The schema covers inputs, but the behavioral envelope is missing.
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%, with both namespace and schedule_id documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond that, giving the baseline 3 for a fully-documented schema.
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 (trigger) and resource (scheduled workflow) plus the immediate-execution nuance, which distinguishes it from list_schedules, delete_schedule, and pause_schedule. It does not, however, distinguish it from unpause_schedule, which can also cause a run, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.
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 is given: nothing says whether this runs the workflow once in addition to the normal schedule, whether it requires the schedule to be unpaused (cf. unpause_schedule), or what errors occur if the schedule is paused. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.