NetworkX MCP Server

trigger_workflow

Trigger a GitHub Actions workflow on a specified branch with optional JSON inputs to automate builds, tests, or deployments.

Instructions

Trigger a GitHub Actions workflow

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": {
      "workflow": "<workflow>"
    },
    "name": "trigger_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`branch`	No		main
`inputs`	No	JSON string of inputs
`workflow`	Yes	Workflow file name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Trigger', implying a mutating action, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., creating a new run, consuming minutes), authentication requirements, or whether the operation is asynchronous. No contradiction exists, but the information is insufficient.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler words, making it highly concise. However, it is arguably too terse for a mutating tool with parameters, but structurally clear.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description is minimal and leaves many important aspects unaddressed: no return value, no side effects, no prerequisites, and no relationship to sibling workflow tools. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is inadequate for a tool that triggers external processes.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema provides descriptions for 'workflow' and 'inputs' (67% coverage), but the tool description adds no explanation of parameter usage, such as how to construct the JSON inputs or the meaning of branch's default. It does not compensate for the missing 'branch' description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses the specific verb 'trigger' with the resource 'GitHub Actions workflow', clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_workflow_status and cancel_workflow by the action verb, but does not explicitly name alternatives or scope details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_workflow_status, cancel_workflow, or rerun_failed_jobs. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., workflow file must exist) or context like 'manually dispatch a workflow run'.

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