mcp-paperless-ngx

Update workflow

update_workflow

Update an existing workflow by replacing its triggers or actions, or disable it with enabled:false.

Instructions

Update a workflow. Passing triggers or actions replaces the existing list wholesale — fetch the current definition with get_workflow, modify it, and send the complete list back. To simply switch a rule off, pass enabled:false and nothing else.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	No
`order`	No
`actions`	No
`enabled`	No
`triggers`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that passing triggers or actions replaces the existing list wholesale, not merges. It also warns that enabled:false should be sent alone, which is critical behavioral nuance. There is no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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?

Two sentences carry all the critical information with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the most important behavioral caveat follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's six parameters and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key non-obvious behaviors and gives a safe pattern for partial updates. It leaves name and order semantics to be inferred, but overall an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It adds essential meaning for triggers, actions, and enabled, explaining replacement semantics and the toggle case. It does not clarify id, name, or order, but these are largely self-evident from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a workflow.' It also distinguishes behaviorally from siblings like get_workflow and create_workflow by describing the update semantics. This is clear and unambiguous.

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 description gives actionable guidance: fetch the current definition with get_workflow, modify it, and send the complete list back. It also explains the special enabled:false case. However, it never explicitly contrasts with create_workflow or delete_workflow, so the 'when not to use' guidance is only implied.

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

Deploy Server