Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Workato Dev MCP

Workato Dev MCP

by gmunro-lyft
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

copy_recipe

Copy a recipe into a specified folder on the server while preserving step AS IDs for consistent references.

Instructions

Server-side copy of a recipe into a folder (preserves step as ids).

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": {
      "recipe_id": "<recipe_id>",
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>"
    },
    "name": "copy_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folder_idYes
recipe_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 does mention 'server-side' and 'preserves step `as` ids', which are useful details, but it does not disclose whether the original is changed, what permissions are needed, or what the output/return value is.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and a key detail. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description gives the essential operation. However, it omits return value, error conditions, and any side-effect caveats, making it adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke without ambiguity.

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?

Parameter schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that recipe_id identifies the recipe to copy and folder_id is the destination folder. However, it adds no further constraints or nuances about the parameters beyond what the schema types already indicate.

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 uses a specific verb 'copy' with resource 'recipe' and destination 'folder', clearly distinguishing it from create_recipe, update_recipe, and delete_recipe. The parenthetical about preserving step `as` ids adds specific behavioral meaning, further clarifying its purpose.

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 description implies usage: when you need a server-side duplicate of a recipe into a folder. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives, such as comparing with create_recipe or noting prerequisites.

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