WebRun Browser Automation

Trigger workflow

trigger_workflow

Destructive

Run a workflow now in its deployed environment. This is the ONLY correct way to run or TEST a saved workflow — a run started here carries the workflow's rules, tracking and memory; browser_task/create_session runs do not. When the user says "run it", "run it once", "test it" or "try it" about a workflow, this is the tool they mean. Drives a real Chrome browser: the run may navigate, fill forms, and submit data on third-party websites as the workflow's prompt requires. Pass values for the workflow's {{variables}} in variables (stored variableValues defaults fill any gaps). Returns a sessionId — poll get_task_status for the result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`force`	No	Work-list workflows only: when the list reports complete, re-open it for a fresh full pass.
`title`	No	Exact workflow title (case-insensitive) — alternative to workflowId
`variables`	No	Values for the workflow's {{variables}}, keyed by exact variable name. Merged over the workflow's stored variableValues defaults.
`workflowId`	No	24-hex workflow id

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`taskId`	No
`message`	No
`success`	Yes
`sessionId`	No	Poll get_task_status with this id
`workflowId`	Yes
`liveViewURL`	No	Page for watching the run live, present when a run started. The only URL here that is safe to show a user or open in a browser.
`listComplete`	No	Work-list workflows: every item has been visited (no run started)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / liveViewURL

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Page for watching the run live, present when a run started. The only URL here that is safe to show a user or open in a browser.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedAug 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete real-world side effects: "Drives a real Chrome browser: the run may navigate, fill forms, and submit data on third-party websites." It also clarifies that the run carries workflow rules, tracking, and memory, adding meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then layers usage guidance, behavioral disclosure, parameter direction, and return-value handling in a logical order. All sentences earn their place; there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a destructiveHint and openWorldHint, the description covers purpose, when to use it, what happens during execution, how to pass variables, and how to obtain results. Nothing essential is missing when combined with the rich schema.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters in detail. The description mostly repeats the variables semantics already present in the schema, adding no significant new parameter-level information beyond emphasizing variable defaults.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb and resource: "Run a workflow now in its deployed environment." It explicitly distinguishes itself from browser_task/create_session as the only correct way to run or test a saved workflow, naming sibling alternatives directly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: "When the user says 'run it', 'run it once', 'test it' or 'try it' about a workflow, this is the tool they mean." It also names alternatives not to use (browser_task/create_session) and describes the post-call flow via get_task_status.

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

All WebRun Browser Automation tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: ad-hoc tasks (browser_task), persistent sessions (create_session/send_task), workflows (create/get/update/trigger), agents (create/list/pause/resume), and session control (pause/resume/stop/terminate). The descriptions explicitly disambiguate overlapping-looking tools like browser_task vs trigger_workflow, making accidental misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern (create_workflow, list_agents, pause_session_task, trigger_workflow, etc.). Minor deviations exist: browser_task and guardrail_response are noun_noun, and screenshot is a single word, but these are understandable and do not disrupt the overall pattern.

Tool Count3/5

With 21 tools the set is on the heavy side, fitting the 16-25 borderline range. Each tool has a distinct purpose, but the count feels slightly inflated due to granular session/task control (pause, resume, stop, terminate) and separate workflow/agent management that could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

Workflows have create/read/update/list/trigger coverage, and sessions/tasks have robust lifecycle control, but there are notable gaps: no delete_workflow or delete_agent, and agents lack update functionality. While core automation flows are supported, lifecycle management is incomplete without deletion or editing of scheduled agents.

Resources

Need Help?