Workflowy MCP Server

workflowy_move_node

Relocate a Workflowy node by changing its parent, enabling reorganization of your outline's structure.

Instructions

Move a node to a different location in the hierarchy by changing its parent.

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": {
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>",
      "parentId": "<parentId>"
    },
    "name": "workflowy_move_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nodeId`	Yes	The unique ID of the node to move
`parentId`	Yes	ID of the new parent node
`priority`	No	Sort order in the new location (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation but fails to mention effects on child nodes, reversibility, or potential side effects. The agent lacks information on constraints like self-move prohibition.

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 at one sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could incorporate more context (e.g., effect on subnodes) without exceeding optimal length, preventing a perfect score.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately explains the primary operation. However, the lack of output schema information, error scenarios, or side-effect details leaves some gaps for an AI agent. It is minimally sufficient but not robust.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, such as the purpose of 'priority'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage but no additional value.

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 clearly states the action ('Move'), the resource ('a node'), and the mechanism ('by changing its parent'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like workflowy_create_node or workflowy_delete_node by specifying the relocation operation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as workflowy_update_node for modifying other properties. No context about prerequisites or scenarios where moving is inappropriate is given.

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

Deploy Server