Skip to main content
Glama

run_workflow

Execute a SLURM workflow defined in a YAML file. Runs jobs in dependency order, with support for partial execution, sweep configurations, and dry-run validation.

Instructions

Execute a SLURM workflow from a YAML file.

Jobs are executed in dependency order - independent jobs run in parallel,
dependent jobs wait for their prerequisites to complete.

Args:
    yaml_path: Path to the YAML workflow file
    from_job: Start execution from this job (skip earlier jobs)
    to_job: Stop execution at this job (skip later jobs)
    single_job: Execute only this specific job, ignoring dependencies
    dry_run: If true, show what would be executed without actually running
    args: Optional mapping merged over the YAML ``args`` section before
        Jinja rendering. ``python:`` prefix values are rejected.
    sweep: Optional sweep spec: ``{"matrix": {...}, "fail_fast": bool,
        "max_parallel": int}``. When present, the request goes through
        :class:`SweepOrchestrator` and the response contains
        ``sweep_run_id``.
    mount: Optional mount name from the active SSH profile. When
        provided, the run is routed through the configured cluster
        adapter with mount-aware path translation for ``work_dir`` /
        ``log_dir``. When omitted (default), the run stays on the
        local SLURM client — same behaviour as pre-5a.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yaml_pathYes
from_jobNo
to_jobNo
single_jobNo
dry_runNo
argsNo
sweepNo
mountNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: dependency-based execution, optional start/stop/single job controls, dry_run, args with Jinja rendering and rejection of 'python:' prefix, sweep orchestration, and mount-based routing. It does not mention destructive effects, but the tool is inherently safe as an execution with no side effects beyond running. Good transparency overall.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief behavior note, and then bullet-like parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all parameters and key execution behaviors. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., SLURM client availability) or error handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly. The output schema exists, so return value documentation is not required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description compensates fully. For each parameter, the description provides clear semantics (e.g., from_job: start execution from this job, sweep: optional sweep spec with matrix/fail_fast/max_parallel). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it executes a SLURM workflow from a YAML file, explaining dependency execution order. It is specific about the resource (workflow) and verb (execute). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like submit_job or create_workflow, so it does not get a 5.

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 for running a workflow from YAML, and mentions behavior like parallel/dependency order, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., submit_job for single jobs, validate_workflow for validation). No when-not-to-use or alternative names are provided.

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/ksterx/srunx'

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