Skip to main content
Glama

CNAPS.ai MCP Server

by ai.cnaps.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

update_flow

DestructiveIdempotent

Change an existing flow: rename it, replace its tags, and/or update node parameters. Provide any combination — one call can do all three. Node parameters are merged with existing values, so specify only what changes; tags replace the existing set. Cannot update a flow that is currently running. This tool does NOT change the graph: to add or remove a node, swap a node's model, or rewire ports, use edit_flow — never create a new flow to restructure an existing one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name for the flow.
tagsNoTags to replace all existing manual tags with. JSON array or comma-separated, e.g. '["upscale","4k"]' or 'upscale,4k'. Entries are trimmed.
flow_idYesThe unique identifier of the flow to update.
node_updatesNoJSON array of node parameter updates. Each entry has node_id (number) and parameters (object with key-value pairs to set/override). Example: [{"node_id": 1, "parameters": {"scale_factor": 4, "steps": 50}}]. Unspecified parameters keep their current values.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "New name for the flow.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Tags to replace all existing manual tags with. JSON array or comma-separated, e.g. '[\"upscale\",\"4k\"]' or 'upscale,4k'. Entries are trimmed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "flow_id",
-  "node_updates"
-]New value: +[
+  "flow_id"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by specifying merge semantics for node parameters, replace semantics for tags, the running-flow restriction, and the graph non-modification guarantee. These are operational behaviors an agent needs to know before calling, and they do not contradict the destructive/idempotent hints.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: action and scope, combination flexibility, key semantics, and the critical alternative routing. The most important distinction (does NOT change the graph) is front-loaded near the end of the final sentence but clearly emphasized.

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?

Covers what the tool does, how parameters behave, when it cannot run, and which sibling to use instead. Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of rich annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description restates the merge and replace behaviors already present in the schema, adding only the 'any combination' usage note. This is adequate but does not materially exceed what structured fields already provide.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Change an existing flow,' then enumerates the three kinds of changes it can make (rename, replace tags, update node parameters). It actively differentiates itself from edit_flow by stating what it does NOT do ('does NOT change the graph'), making its role unmistakable.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: graph-restructuring operations like adding/removing nodes or rewiring ports should go to edit_flow, and it warns against creating a new flow to restructure an existing one. It also states a hard precondition: cannot update a flow that is currently running.

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

All CNAPS.ai MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources