Workato Dev MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_recipe

Update an existing Workato recipe's name, code, or configuration by providing the recipe ID and optional JSON strings for these fields. Stop a running recipe before updating to avoid conflicts.

Instructions

Update a recipe's code/name/config (code & config as JSON strings). Stop a running recipe first.

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": "update_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	No
`name`	No
`config`	No
`recipe_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 31, 2026

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 disclosure burden. It reveals that a running recipe must be stopped first, which is a behavioral prerequisite. However, it omits details on permissions, partial vs. full updates, and error handling, leaving significant gaps.

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 one concise sentence plus an imperative, with every phrase earning its place: the fields, the JSON format, and the stop-first prerequisite. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides the key operational prerequisite and field formats, but does not explain the return value or potential error states. For a mutation tool without other context, this is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameter meaning. It clarifies that code and config are JSON strings and name is a string, which is valuable. It does not explicitly describe recipe_id, though its role is inferable from the schema and tool name. This partial compensation is adequate but not complete.

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 the specific verb 'Update' and clearly identifies the resource and fields (code, name, config). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_recipe or delete_recipe, and the prerequisite note adds useful context.

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 instruction to 'Stop a running recipe first' provides an explicit when-to-use condition, implying this tool is for modifying existing recipes. It lacks explicit alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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

Deploy Server