Stop a workflow from running by deactivating it using its ID. This prevents automated processes from executing until reactivated.
Deactivate a workflow by ID. This will prevent the workflow from running. IMPORTANT: Arguments must be provided as compact, single-line JSON without whitespace or newlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clientId | Yes | ||
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool deactivates a workflow, implying a mutation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or response format. The JSON formatting note is procedural but not behavioral.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose and effect, second provides a technical note. It's front-loaded with core information and avoids redundancy, though the JSON formatting note could be more integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'ID' but not 'clientId', leaving one parameter unexplained. No details on parameter formats, sources, or constraints are provided, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('deactivate') and resource ('workflow by ID'), with the effect 'prevent the workflow from running'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'activate-workflow' by specifying deactivation, though not explicitly contrasting them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete-workflow' or 'update-workflow', nor prerequisites such as workflow state. It only mentions a technical requirement for JSON formatting, not contextual usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.