SOLVE-IT Workflow MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

workflow_create

Create a SOLVE-IT workflow, validate it against the knowledge base, and write it to a JSON file with a share link for the Workflow Builder.

Instructions

Create a new SOLVE-IT workflow, write it to a JSON file and return the file path and, when it fits, a share link for the Workflow Builder (https://workflows.hargs.co.uk).

Nodes are given with your own keys; edges, selections and zone members refer to those keys, and the result maps each key to the node ID the server assigned. A sub-technique ID can be given directly as a technique: it is stored as its parent technique with the sub-technique as a method. Zones take the keys of their member nodes and are drawn around them. Use decision or fork nodes for branches out of a step. Use workflow_find_techniques to look up DFT IDs.

Layout is computed: direction "down" (the default, as the builder draws) or "right" (left to right, for example for slides). The workflow is checked against the SOLVE-IT knowledge base first; if there are errors nothing is written and the errors are returned. Warnings are returned with the result.

If a link is returned, give it to the user exactly as returned, in full: changing even one character breaks it. The file path, or open_in_browser=true, is the dependable way to open the workflow; offer those, especially when there is no link (large workflows exceed the 8000-character link limit).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filename`	No	File name inside the output directory (.json added if missing). Defaults to a name made from the title.
`workflow`	Yes	The workflow to build.
`direction`	No	Layout direction: "down" (default) or "right" for slides.	down
`overwrite`	No	Replace an existing file of that name even if this server did not write it. Otherwise a numbered name is used.
`open_in_browser`	No	Also open the workflow in the default browser on this machine.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and delivers well beyond a bare 'create': it discloses that validation happens before writing (nothing written on errors), that warnings are returned, that link characters must not be altered, and the 8000-character link limit. It does not state overwrite behavior or file location, which the schema covers.

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-loaded with the core action and result, then layered with node-key semantics and output guidance. Dense but every paragraph carries information; the link-character warning is slightly verbose but tied to a real failure mode.

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 5-parameter, deeply nested creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parts: key-to-ID mapping, sub-technique handling, zones, validation-before-write, and the practical share-link caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 adds genuine cross-parameter semantics beyond the schema by explaining that user-supplied keys map to server-assigned node IDs, that edges/selections/zone members reference those keys, that sub-technique IDs are stored as a parent technique with a method, and that zones are drawn around member nodes.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a new SOLVE-IT workflow') and immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming its full effect: writing a JSON file, returning a file path, and generating a share link. The workflow_find_techniques cross-reference makes the division of labor explicit.

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?

It directs the agent to workflow_find_techniques for DFT lookups and explains the fallback chain (share link vs file path vs open_in_browser) for opening the workflow. It doesn't explicitly contrast create vs workflow_update, which is the most likely ambiguity among siblings.

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

Deploy Server