update_workflowUpdate a specific workflow by ID, including its name, triggers, and enabled status, to keep incident automation accurate.
Update a specific workflow by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the workflow (fills `{id}` in /v1/workflows/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `workflow_id` argument. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world update, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the id-targeting scope and says nothing about partial versus full update behavior, admin-only fields, ignored fields, or side effects of changing workflow configuration.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves important context unstated.
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?
Although annotations and an output schema exist, this is a complex mutation with a large nested `data` payload and only 50% schema description coverage. The description is too minimal to explain update semantics or help the agent distinguish this tool from other workflow tools.
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?
The schema already documents the id parameter in detail, and also contains extensive nested attribute descriptions. The description only says 'by id' and adds no meaning about the required `data` object or how its many attributes should be used.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: update a workflow, scoped to a specific id. It distinguishes update from create/get/list by the verb, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as create_workflow or update_workflow_task.
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?
It implies use for updating an existing workflow by id, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. With siblings like create_workflow and get_workflow present, an agent receives no routing help beyond the verb itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.