Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

workflow_run

Execute a saved workflow revision in a project with specified parameters and execution settings, optionally resuming from a checkpoint or using an idempotency key.

Instructions

workflow_run

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "workflow_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesTool arguments object (all fields documented; Z is positive upward).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations already state this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what a run produces, that it is asynchronous and tracked via workflow_status/job_status, or what the idempotency_key means behaviorally. The single word provides zero context beyond the structured fields.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

A single word is not concise so much as under-specified; there is no front-loaded statement of action, no scope, and no routing to alternatives. Brevity here costs the agent all actionable information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with a deeply nested argument object (workflow ref, execution placement/device policy, resume snapshot, idempotency key) and no output schema, the description supplies none of the context needed to invoke it correctly or interpret the result. It is wholly inadequate given the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the nested request object documents workflow refs, execution policy, resume_run checkpoints, and idempotency_key in detail, so the schema carries the full burden. With high coverage the baseline of 3 applies even though the description adds no parameter meaning of its own.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to run this versus workflow_validate, workflow_status, workflow_cancel, or calculation_run. The schema hints that the workflow ref comes from workflow_save, but that routing information never appears in the description the agent reads first.

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