Oi

Create Workflow

oi.workflows.create

Create a private Oi Workflow draft in the current organization from required workflow fields and ordered Context steps. Use oi.contexts.search first when an agent is unsure which Context ids or slugs to include. This creates a draft only; it does not release or publish the Workflow.

Plan and Billing

Current organization plan: Business. Current limits: 10,000 seats; 10,000 private Guardrails; 10,000 private Skills; 10,000 private Contexts; 10,000 private Workflows; 10,000 Connections; 10,000 API keys; 1,000,000 Agent messages per day; 1,000,000 Agent messages per month. Billing and upgrades: https://app.oioioi.ai/dashboard/organization/billing. When a user asks for work that exceeds the current plan or an unavailable paid capability, do the portion available on the current plan, clearly say what is blocked by the plan, and include the billing link for upgrading. Do not invent exceptions, temporary limit increases, prices, or hidden capabilities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Workflow name.
`slug`	No	Optional organization-unique workflow slug.
`tags`	No	Optional tag labels.
`bestFor`	Yes	Best-fit use cases.
`audience`	Yes	Who this workflow is for.
`contexts`	Yes	Ordered Context steps for this workflow.
`apiSummary`	No	Optional API summary.
`categories`	No	Optional category labels.
`constraints`	No	Optional workflow constraints.
`description`	Yes	Workflow description.
`experiments`	No	Optional experiment guidance.
`measurement`	No	Optional measurement guidance.
`exampleUseCases`	No	Optional example use cases, up to 3.
`definitionOfDone`	No	Optional definition of done.
`shortDescription`	No	Optional short summary.
`autoSelectEnabled`	No	Whether Oi may auto-select this workflow.
`postExecutionFollowUp`	No	Optional post-execution follow-up guidance.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workflow`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds important behavior: the result is a private draft, not a released or published workflow. It also surfaces organization plan limits and directs agents to be transparent about plan-blocked capabilities, which is useful for setting expectations beyond the raw annotation flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the Plan and Billing section contains a long list of unrelated limits such as seats, guardrails, skills, connections, API keys, and messages that do not directly help an agent use this create-workflow tool. The tool-specific content is concise, but the boilerplate reduces overall density.

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?

For a 17-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the key contextual gaps: draft-only behavior, current organization scope, ordering of Context steps, and how to resolve uncertain Context ids. It does not explain duplicate-name handling or validation errors, but those are not essential given the schema's completeness.

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 schema already documents all 17 parameters. The description adds little beyond noting that Context steps should be ordered and that Context ids or slugs are the relevant input, which mostly restates the schema's existing contexts field description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a private Oi Workflow draft in the current organization'. It also distinguishes the tool's scope by clarifying that it creates a draft only and does not release or publish the Workflow, which is meaningful against sibling tools like oi.workflows.update and oi.workflows.use.

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 explicit guidance to use oi.contexts.search first when unsure which Context ids or slugs to include. It also clarifies that this tool only creates a draft, implying release/publish is out of scope. It does not explicitly contrast with oi.workflows.update for modifications, but the usage context is clear enough.

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

All Oi 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

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Resource prefixes (contexts, skills, guardrails, workflows, connections) make most tools clearly distinct, and parallel lifecycle verbs are scoped by resource name. The main ambiguity is within the guardrails publish/release/unpublish lifecycle and between brain.save-feedback, contexts.save-draft-feedback, and the two report tools, though detailed descriptions mostly resolve it.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools overwhelmingly follow an oi.<resource>.<verb> snake_case pattern, with create/get/list/update/use repeated consistently across resource types. Deviations include resource-less oi.recommend, noun-style oi.auth.whoami, and inconsistent release handling (separate guardrails.release vs action=release on contexts/skills update).

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is too many for a single server, mainly because the same lifecycle pattern is repeated across Contexts, Skills, Guardrails, and Workflows. Each tool may be individually justifiable, but the set feels bloated and could benefit from consolidation or splitting into per-resource servers.

Completeness3/5

CRUD coverage is uneven: Guardrails have create/update/delete/list/get plus publish/unpublish/release, while Contexts, Skills, and Workflows lack any delete or archive tool, and Brain has only save-feedback with no read/update/delete path. Connections and auth are read/use-only, which may be intentional but leaves management actions absent.

Create Workflow

Plan and Billing

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources