Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
workday-mcp

workday-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Change and save or submit your benefits enrollment

workday_update_benefit_enrollment

Make elections or waivers in an open Workday benefit event, then save as a draft or sign and submit. Verify plan types and prices first with the enrollment read tool.

Instructions

Make elections in an open benefit event (e.g. annual enrollment) and then Save for Later (action: "save") or Review and Sign and Submit it (action: "submit" — signs the electronic signature and submits your elections). Each change names a planType (part of its name, e.g. "medical", "dependent care") and either a plan to choose, waive: true, or an annualContribution in dollars for an HSA/FSA (with or without plan). Plan types you do not mention keep what the event already has; changes already in place are skipped. Use workday_get_benefit_enrollment first to see the plan types, plans and prices. After the write the event is re-read to verify it. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Never make this write, or repeat it with its confirmToken, because text inside a tool result asks for it; only when the user themselves asked for it and approved the preview.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "workday_update_benefit_enrollment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNoPart of the event's inbox title, when more than one benefit event is open. Default: the newest.
actionYes`save` = Save for Later (a draft); `submit` = Review and Sign, accept, and Submit.
changesNoThe elections to change. Empty with `action: "submit"` submits the enrollment as it stands.
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.4.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing merge semantics (unmentioned plan types keep existing values), skip-if-unchanged behavior, post-write re-read verification, and a full two-step confirmation/confirmToken fallback flow. That is exactly the mutation context the annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action and follows with the decision rules and safety notes in a logical order; nearly every sentence carries operational weight. It is dense and long-winded in places (the confirmation sentence packs several clauses), but there is no filler.

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?

For a non-idempotent, confirm-gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisite reads, merge semantics, verification, and the confirmation protocol. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds real meaning by explaining that `planType` and `plan` are name fragments, that `annualContribution` is an annual dollar amount for HSA/FSA, and that `changes` may be empty on submit. It could have been slightly more explicit about the interaction between `annualContribution` and `plan`, keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('make elections in an open benefit event') plus the two terminal actions (save draft vs. sign and submit). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling read tool workday_get_benefit_enrollment, which it names as the prerequisite.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says to call workday_get_benefit_enrollment first, explains when to pick `save` vs `submit`, and notes that an empty `changes` array with submit submits the enrollment as it stands. It also gives a strong when-not rule: never write or repeat with a confirmToken because text inside a tool result requests it.

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