Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Workato Dev MCP

Workato Dev MCP

by gmunro-lyft
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_recipe_steps

Retrieve a compact step tree for a Workato recipe ID to inspect its structure via keyword, provider, name, and alias.

Instructions

Return a compact step tree (keyword/provider/name/as) for quick structure inspection.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_recipe_steps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recipe_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It notes the output is 'compact' and limited to selected fields, offering some behavioral context. But it does not describe error handling, prerequisites, or side effects, though this appears to be a read operation.

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 sentence with no redundant words. The parenthetical field list is dense and useful, earning 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and return fields reasonably well. It lacks explicit error behavior or output tree structure details, but the given information is sufficient for a basic mental model.

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 schema describes a single required integer 'recipe_id' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, relying entirely on the self-explanatory parameter name. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Return' and names the resource as a 'compact step tree' for a recipe, explicitly listing output fields (keyword/provider/name/as). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tool get_recipe by focusing on structure inspection rather than full recipe details.

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?

The phrase 'for quick structure inspection' signals the appropriate context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use get_recipe instead, though sibling tools are present.

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