workday-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Change and save or submit a request

workday_update_request

Change answers on an open Workday request and save for later or submit. The tool re-reads the request to verify the update.

Instructions

Change answers on one of your open requests and then Save for Later (action: "save") or Submit it (action: "submit" — sends it on in Workday). answers maps a question number (or a distinctive part of the question) to the new answer; a choice must be one of its options. Unchanged answers are skipped; a submit needs every required question answered. After the write, the request 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": {
      "request": "<request>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "workday_update_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	`save` = Save for Later (stays with you); `submit` = Submit (sends it on).
`answers`	No	Question number (or part of the question text) → new answer.
`request`	Yes	The `request` id from `workday_get_request`.
`confirmToken`	No	ONLY 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.

Addedv1.2.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the post-write re-read verification, the two-step confirmation fallback with confirmToken, and an explicit prompt-injection guard against writing because tool-result text asked for it. Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false — the description supplies the operational safety story they omit.

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 action/reversibility distinction is front-loaded and every sentence carries information, but the single dense paragraph packs the confirmation protocol and injection warning together, making it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers confirmation flow, submit prerequisites, and post-write verification. It stops short of describing the shape of a successful response (beyond the confirmation-required preview), which is the main remaining gap.

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, but the description adds real meaning: answers keys may be a question number or a distinctive part of the question text, a choice must be one of its options, and unchanged answers are skipped. confirmToken usage (never on first call, never invented, never reused) is also spelled out.

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: change answers on an open request, then either save or submit. The action semantics (save stays with you, submit sends it on) immediately distinguish this from sibling readers like workday_get_request or workday_get_request_form.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear conditions: use save to keep the request with you, submit to send it on, and a submit requires every required question answered. It also mandates user confirmation before the write. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling as an alternative (e.g. workday_get_request_form for viewing the form), but the when-to-use context is otherwise explicit.

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