Skip to main content
Glama

FlowCastle

by ai.flowcastle
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_design_guidelines

Read-only

Return the flow-design rules that validation does NOT enforce: when to split a branch into its own flow, how navigation and menus must be wired, and worked examples. Read-only, needs no API key. Called with NO arguments it returns a compact INDEX: the short rules every batch needs, in full, plus every other section and example with one line saying when you need it. Call it a second time naming only the ones this change touches — { sections: ["flow-link-navigation","example-flow-link-navigation"] } — to get them in full. Read this before any structural edit (new blocks, new branches, new flows) — a batch can pass validate_actions and still be badly structured, and these rules are what catch that.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
examplesNoExample ids from the index. Same as listing them in sections.
sectionsNoSection and example ids from the index whose full text you need (e.g. ["input-collection","example-explicit-listener"]).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / examples
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Example ids from the index. Same as listing them in sections.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / sections
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Section and example ids from the index whose full text you need (e.g. [\"input-collection\",\"example-explicit-listener\"]).",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/safe/no-open-world, but the description adds what they don't: no API key needed, the two-phase index-then-full-text retrieval behavior, and the crucial caveat that a batch can pass validate_actions yet still be badly structured. That is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose, then the call protocol, then the when-to-use warning; a compact example payload is included. Slightly dense and the index/two-call idea is restated more than once, but no sentence is 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape twice over: a compact index containing short rules in full plus one-line pointers to every other section/example, then full text on the second call. For a zero-required-param, read-only reference tool, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description earns extra credit by explaining the usage pattern behind the params — omit both for the compact index, then pass ids taken from that index — and by clarifying examples/sections equivalence in context rather than as a schema note.

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?

States a specific resource (flow-design rules that validation does NOT enforce) plus a precise scope of contents: branch-splitting, navigation/menu wiring, and worked examples. It is clearly distinguished from validate_actions by explicitly naming what validation misses.

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?

Gives explicit timing ("Read this before any structural edit (new blocks, new branches, new flows)") and a concrete two-step procedure: call with no arguments for the index, then call again with only the sections the change touches. It also implicitly contrasts with validate_actions, which cannot catch structural problems.

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

All FlowCastle 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