mcp-workato

force_run_recipe

Trigger an immediate recipe execution on demand by providing the recipe ID. Bypass wait intervals and run Workato recipes instantly.

Instructions

Force-run a recipe on demand (POST /api/recipes/:recipe_id/force_run). Rate limit: 1 request per second.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "force_run_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 2, 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 carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a rate limit of 1 request per second, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether force_run is destructive, whether it interrupts an existing run, or what side effects it may have. This is a significant gap for an operation named 'force_run'.

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 concise and to the point, with the endpoint reference and rate limit in a single sentence. No filler words appear, though it could have expanded on behavior without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) the description is minimal but missing critical context: return value, error behavior, and the difference from start_recipe. The rate limit is noted but not the nature of the operation, so an agent lacks enough context to safely invoke this tool.

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 input schema contains a single 'id' parameter with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to (though the endpoint implies recipe_id) or provide any additional meaning. Since the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, the semantic coverage is poor.

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 names a specific action ('Force-run') on a clear resource ('a recipe') and includes the endpoint path. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling start_recipe, so an agent may not know when force-run is appropriate instead of a normal start.

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 given on when to use force_run versus start_recipe or other recipe-related tools. The only usage hint is 'on demand', which is vague and does not explain prerequisites or conditions that would warrant forcing a run.

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