Skip to main content
Glama

dify_run

Test-run a Dify workflow draft without publishing it, returning execution status, actual node order, failed nodes, and the final reply.

Instructions

在草稿上试运行一次(不发布)。返回工作流状态、实际执行的节点顺序、失败节点与最终回复。

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>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "dify_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appYes应用名称或 id。
aliasNo可选。实例别名。
queryYes用户这一轮的输入。
inputsNo工作流输入变量对象。
timeoutMsNo最长等待毫秒数,默认 120000。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the draft is not published and that the response includes status, executed node order, failed nodes, and final reply. It does not warn that this actually executes the workflow (real LLM/tool calls, cost, external side effects), nor does it mention permissions or failure semantics.

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 zero waste; the operation and its non-publishing nature are front-loaded, followed by the return contents. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With five parameters, a nested inputs object, and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return payload, which is the main missing structured information. It falls slightly short on the execution side effects and on how app/alias/inputs interact, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented including the 120000ms default timeout, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about app/alias resolution, the nested inputs object, or how query relates to inputs.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — trial-running the draft workflow — and pins the scope with "(不发布)", which directly separates it from the sibling dify_canvas_publish. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The parenthetical "不发布" implies this is the tool to use for testing changes before publishing, which is useful implied guidance. However, no alternative is named explicitly and there is no statement of when not to use it (for example, versus dify_canvas_get for inspecting without executing).

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