Inistate MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create Module

create_module

Creates workflow modules with states, activities, and flows, or record list modules with fields, validating design rules before saving.

Instructions

Create a new module. Supports workflow modules (states, activities, flows) and record list modules (fields only). Requires Administrator, Consultant, or Workspace Admin role. Validates internally with the same rules as validate_design and returns structured errors without creating anything — a separate validate_design call beforehand is optional. See inistate://schema/configure for field types, color palette, and design rules.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`card`	No	The listing card designed with the schema — how each entry shows in the module's list (mobile and web). Fields and activities by NAME. See CardDefinition in inistate://schema/configure. A card that does not pass never fails the call: the module gets the platform's default card and the response's cardStatus says why.
`icon`	No	Emoji identifier
`name`	Yes	Module name
`flows`	No	State transition rules: { from, to, activity } by name. Omit for record list modules.
`states`	No	Workflow states. Omit for record list modules.
`activities`	No	Custom activities. Omit for record list modules.
`description`	No
`information`	No	Field definitions. Items matched by id on update enable renaming.
`workspaceId`	No	Workspace ID. Omit if set via env or set_workspace; required in stateless/remote mode.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.1Oct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / card

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "The listing card designed with the schema — how each entry shows in the module's list (mobile and web). Fields and activities by NAME. See CardDefinition in inistate://schema/configure. A card that does not pass never fails the call: the module gets the platform's default card and the response's cardStatus says why.",
+  "properties": {
+    "action": {
+      "description": "'view' (the default when activities exist), 'edit', or an activity name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "icon": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Detail only",
+      "properties": {
+        "field": {
+          "description": "An Image, Images, File, Files or Selection field, by name",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "size": {
+          "description": "XS | S | M | L (S for a Selection, M for an image)",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "field"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "rows": {
+      "description": "1–5 rows of 1–3 items: the state row first (or the defaultCard widget alone), the title field L/b, secondary fields S/M, activities in their own row",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "items": {
+            "description": "1–3 items",
+            "items": {
+              "additionalProperties": false,
+              "properties": {
+                "name": {
+                  "description": "Field or activity name; 'defaultCard' for the widget; unused for state",
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "orientation": {
+                  "description": "Image/File fields only: portrait | landscape",
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "ratio": {
+                  "description": "Image/File fields only: 1:1 | 3:2 | 4:3 | 16:9",
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "settings": {
+                  "additionalProperties": {},
+                  "description": "defaultCard widget switches (booleans): title, state, assignees, comment, createdBy, createdDate, due, documentId",
+                  "type": "object"
+                },
+                "size": {
+                  "description": "S | M | L — Text, number and date fields only",
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "style": {
+                  "description": "l | n | b — Text, number and date fields only",
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "type": {
+                  "description": "field | state | activity | widget",
+                  "type": "string"
+                }
+              },
+              "required": [
+                "type"
+              ],
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "items"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "size": {
+      "description": "Grid only: S | M | L",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "description": "'grid' when the module has an Image/Images field (the image alone in row 1); otherwise 'detail' with an icon",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "type"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / information / items / properties / display

Added value: +{
+  "description": "User/Users/Module/Modules only: name of the connected module's field shown for a picked record. Omit to default (Full Name/Name for users, else the first Text field).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv1.1.1Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: role-based authorization, self-validating semantics that return structured errors 'without creating anything', and a pointer to the design-rules resource. It still doesn't describe the success payload or any rate/side-effect limits.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then mode support, then prerequisites, then the validation/alternative nuance, ending with a resource pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or title.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with deeply nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization, validation behavior, and where the design rules live, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the success response shape (e.g. whether a module id is returned) and workspace-scoping expectations, which are only partially inferable from the schema.

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 already 89%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the key cross-parameter insight: which parameter families apply to workflow modules versus record list modules, and that field types/color rules live in inistate://schema/configure. That conditional-mode framing is meaningfully more than the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new module') and immediately scopes it into its two supported flavors: workflow modules (states, activities, flows) and record list modules (fields only). This lets an agent tell it apart from update_module and design_workflow without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear operational context: required roles are named, and it explicitly routes the validate-then-create decision by saying internal validation mirrors validate_design and that a separate validate_design call is optional. It does not say when to prefer this over sibling design_workflow or when creation is inappropriate, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

Create Module

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools