Submit a workflow for schema validation and parsing, then optionally execute it in run mode.
Workflow 提交——schema 校验 + 解析（validate/run）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | 执行模式：validate=只校验（默认）/ run=校验后执行 | validate |
| task | No | run 模式下的任务描述（供编排主 Agent 组装上下文） | |
| workflow | Yes | workflow 文本（YAML 或 JSON——YAML 是 JSON 超集，统一走 YAML 解析） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions schema validation and parsing, which is useful, but it does not explain what happens in 'run' mode—whether it executes the workflow, triggers side effects, persists anything, or requires special permissions. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with an execution mode.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the core idea is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief given the schema's clarity, though the Chinese phrasing may be slightly cryptic for agents that expect more explicit English explanations.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal description, the agent is left without critical context about what the tool returns, how run mode behaves, or how this submission differs from creating/activating a workflow. The combination of schema coverage and a one-line description is not enough to fully support correct invocation in an agentic context.
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?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, such as clarifying the format of the 'task' field or the distinction between YAML and JSON in practice.
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?
The description states that this tool submits a workflow with schema validation and parsing, and it explicitly mentions the validate/run modes. This goes beyond the bare name 'workflow_submit' and gives a clear sense of the tool's core behavior, though it could be more explicit about what 'submit' ultimately accomplishes.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as workflow_create, workflow_update, activate_workflow, or route_workflow. It does not provide exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria for choosing validate vs. run beyond the mode names themselves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.