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

TableJSON 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 the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description goes well beyond them: 'needs no API key', the stateful two-phase retrieval behavior (first call returns a compact index with one-line pointers, second call expands only the named sections), and the constraint that these rules are not enforced by validation.

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 and the no-arg index behavior before the two-call mechanics. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the worked example object costs a little length but earns it by disambiguating the second-call shape.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains that a bare call returns a compact index and a parameterized call returns named sections in full. Combined with the usage protocol, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly in both modes.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it shows that calling with NO arguments yields the index, and it provides a concrete example object showing sections used to expand specific ids, plus the relationship between examples and sections ids.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource (return flow-design rules) and immediately scopes it: the rules validation does NOT enforce. It distinguishes itself from validate_actions by naming that sibling and explaining why this tool exists alongside it.

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?

Explicitly says to read it before any structural edit (new blocks/branches/flows), prescribes the two-call pattern (bare call = index, second call names touched sections), and motivates it with the concrete failure mode 'a batch can pass validate_actions and still be badly structured'. When-to-use, how-to-use, and the alternative are all present.

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