Move a workflow into a folder or back to root level by providing its workflowId and optional folderId; omit folderId for root.
Move a workflow into a folder, or back to root level. To move to root, omit folderId or pass null.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folderId | No | Target folder ID (from list_folders). Omit or null to move to root level. | |
| workflowId | Yes | The workflow ID to move (from list_workflows) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond the root-move mechanic it says nothing about whether the move requires folder permissions, what happens if folderId is invalid, whether the workflow's identity/steps are preserved, or whether the move is reversible — significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the non-obvious root-move rule. Every clause earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter move with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes adequately. It falls short only on error/permission behavior, which is a modest gap at this complexity.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'omit or null for root' behavior the description also repeats. The description adds no meaning beyond that structured data, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (move) and resource (workflow) plus both possible destinations (a folder, or root level). No sibling tool performs this operation, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.
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?
It explains the operational variant — omit folderId or pass null to move to root — which is genuine usage guidance, but there is no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternatives among the folder/workflow siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.