Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dify-canvas-mcp

dify-canvas-mcp

by elegant01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

dify_canvas_publish

Publishes the current Dify canvas draft and reads back the published hash to verify it. Confirm with the user before publishing because it goes live immediately.

Instructions

发布当前草稿并回读发布态 hash 核对。发布立即上线，调用前先向用户确认。

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": {
      "app": "<app>"
    },
    "name": "dify_canvas_publish"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appYes应用名称或 id。
aliasNo可选。实例别名。
expectedHashNo可选。只发布这个 hash 的草稿。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by disclosing that the change is immediately live and that a human confirmation is expected, and it describes a post-publish hash read-back for verification. It omits permission requirements and the exact consequence for the running app, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no waste: the action and verification come first, the immediate-live warning and the pre-call confirmation second. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 publishing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical risks: immediate go-live and the need for confirmation. A note on whether a hash mismatch fails the call or what is returned would make it complete.

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%, so each of the three parameters is already documented. The description indirectly explains why expectedHash exists (the hash is read back and compared after publishing), but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('发布当前草稿', publish the current draft) and adds a verification behavior (read back the published hash). It is distinguishable from dify_canvas_patch and dify_canvas_get by implication, but does not name the sibling tools explicitly.

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 an explicit precondition: confirm with the user before calling, because publishing goes live immediately. It does not spell out when to prefer dify_canvas_patch instead, so alternatives are only implied.

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