Skip to main content
Glama
jupiterbak

AYX-MCP-Wrapper

by jupiterbak

transfer_all_assets

Transfer all assets from one user to another in Alteryx Server. Use this tool to reassign workflows, collections, and resources between users.

Instructions

Transfer all assets from one user to another

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYes
new_owner_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function implementing the logic to transfer all specified assets (workflows, schedules, collections) from one user to another using the Alteryx Server API.
    def transfer_all_assets(
        self,
        user_id: str,
        new_owner_id: str,
        transfer_workflows: bool,
        transfer_schedules: bool,
        transfer_collections: bool,
    ):
        """Transfer all assets (workflows, schedules, collections) owned by one user to another."""
        try:
            user = self.users_api.users_get_user(user_id)
            if not user:
                return "Error: User not found"
            new_owner = self.users_api.users_get_user(new_owner_id)
            if not new_owner:
                return "Error: New owner not found"
            contract = server_client.TransferUserAssetsContract(
                owner_id=new_owner_id,
                transfer_workflows=transfer_workflows,
                transfer_schedules=transfer_schedules,
                transfer_collections=transfer_collections,
            )
            api_response = self.users_api.users_transfer_assets(user_id, contract)
            return pprint.pformat(api_response)
        except ApiException as e:
            return f"Error: {e}"
  • MCP tool registration for 'transfer_all_assets' using the @app.tool decorator, which delegates to the tools implementation.
    @self.app.tool()
    def transfer_all_assets(user_id: str, new_owner_id: str):
        """Transfer all assets from one user to another"""
        return self.tools.transfer_all_assets(user_id, new_owner_id)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive (irreversible transfer), requires admin rights, has rate limits, or what happens to asset ownership history. The description implies a mutation but lacks critical safety and operational context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted wording, and it directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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 inadequate. It omits behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, reversibility), parameter semantics, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for safe and correct usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details beyond what's inferred from the tool name. It doesn't explain 'user_id' (source) or 'new_owner_id' (target) formats, validation rules, or side effects. Baseline is 3 due to low coverage, but minimal value added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('transfer') and resource ('all assets'), specifying it moves assets from one user to another. It distinguishes from siblings like 'transfer_workflow' (single workflow) and 'get_user_assets_by_type' (read-only), but doesn't explicitly mention what 'assets' include (e.g., workflows, schedules, collections).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 'transfer_workflow' (for individual assets) or 'change_schedule_owner' (for specific asset types). It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., user permissions, asset states) or exclusions (e.g., cannot transfer if assets are in use).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jupiterbak/AYX-MCP-Wrapper'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server