Skip to main content
Glama
Swih

Ritoko

by Swih
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Save a workflow

workflow_save

Validates and persists a recorded browser workflow as a new version, clears the recording, and returns its name, version, and warnings to fix fragile selectors or literal passwords.

Instructions

Validates and saves a workflow as a new version, then clears the recording. Returns its name, version and warnings to fix (fragile selectors, literal passwords); invalid input returns path: message errors. workflow_get shows a saved example. Shape: {name,description,readOnly?,params?: {: {description?,required?,default?} or {secret:true,env:"ENV_VAR"}},items?: {from,key,scope?,sheet?,required?},servers?: {: {command,args?,env?,cwd?}|{url,headers?}|{ref:"claude"}|{ref:"agent"}},setup?: Step[],item?: Step[],teardown?: Step[]}. ref:agent uses an existing tool via host mode, without starting another server. Step: {id?,do,commit?,note?,timeoutMs?} plus: goto {url}|click/hover {target}|fill/select {target,value}|check {target,checked?}|press {key,target?}|upload {target,file}|download/extract {target,saveAs}|expect {target?,text?,value?,url?}|wait {target?,ms?}|http {url,method?,headers?,query?,body?:{json}|{form}|{text},expect?:{status?:[200],json?:{"/pointer":"expected template"}},save?:{name:"/pointer"},saveAs?,idempotencyKey?,session?:"none"|"browser"}|mcp {server,tool,args?,expect?:{json},save?,saveAs?,file?:"/pointer",readOnly?}. save feeds {{vars.name}}. click/press accept onDialog/dialogText. HTTP/MCP execute in Node; only steps needing a browser open one. Writes must be the one commit; later steps only verify/read. Credentials use secret params. Max 900000ms for wait/expect/download/http/mcp, 120000 otherwise. Target: {primary: Selector, fallbacks?: Selector[], frame?, description?}, as recorded. Selector: {by: "role", role, name?, exact?} | {by: "label" | "placeholder" | "text", text, exact?} | {by: "testid", id} | {by: "css", css} | {by: "xpath", xpath}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workflowYesThe workflow JSON described above.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description says the tool 'clears the recording,' which is a destructive side effect on the current recording data. This directly contradicts the annotation, so per the rubric the score is 1 despite the otherwise rich return and validation details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description front-loads the core purpose and return behavior, which is good. However, the remaining DSL documentation is a single dense paragraph with little structural separation, making it hard to parse even though much of the content is necessary given the empty nested schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complex workflow DSL, a placeholder input schema, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers validation, return values, error shape, side effects, step types, selectors, credentials, and execution limits.

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 input schema is only a generic object with no nested parameter documentation, but the description defines the entire workflow JSON shape: params, items, servers, setup/item/teardown steps, selector variants, credential handling, ref:agent behavior, timeouts, and HTTP/MCP step details. This adds extensive semantic meaning far beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: validates and saves a workflow as a new version, then clears the recording. It also distinguishes the tool from workflow_get by noting that workflow_get shows a saved example. An agent can identify the core operation without opening the tool schema.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance. The only sibling reference is 'workflow_get shows a saved example,' which is contextual but not actionable usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools