Skip to main content
Glama

FlowCastle

by ai.flowcastle

update_application

Idempotent

Update application-level settings (name, active state, default language, incoming-message behavior). Requires the manage_settings permission in that application. Only the fields you pass are changed; omitted fields keep their current value, so the call is idempotent. Returns the updated application.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew display name. Omit to leave unchanged.
isActiveNoSet false to deactivate the application — its bots stop responding. Omit to leave unchanged.
applicationIdNoApplication (workspace) id. Optional: an application-scoped key (app_...) defaults to its own application, but a personal key (usr_...) has no default and omitting it fails with MCP_APPLICATION_REQUIRED. Call list_applications to get the id.
defaultLanguageNoDefault language for new flows. Only "en", "ru", and "es" are supported; any other value falls back to "en".
incomingMessageFlowIdNoFlow to run for unmatched inbound messages. Required in practice when incomingMessageBehavior is EXECUTE_FLOW.
incomingMessageBehaviorNoWhat happens to an inbound message that matches no trigger: LIVE_CHAT routes it to a human operator, EXECUTE_FLOW runs the flow named by incomingMessageFlowId.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description confirms annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds context beyond them: it notes the permission requirement, the partial update behavior (only passed fields change), and that it returns the updated application.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value: permission requirement, idempotency, and return value.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, permission, partial update, and return value. However, it does not mention error cases (e.g., invalid applicationId) or the default behavior for applicationId when omitted. Still, it is sufficient for a tool with no output schema and 100% schema coverage.

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?

While the input schema already has 100% per-parameter descriptions, the description adds collective behavioral meaning: 'Only the fields you pass are changed; omitted fields keep their current value, so the call is idempotent.' This provides context beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'application-level settings', listing the specific fields (name, active state, default language, incoming-message behavior). It distinguishes from siblings like create_application and get_application_context by focusing on mutation.

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 specifies the required permission ('manage_settings') and explains idempotent behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_application, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each get_/list_ tool targets a distinct resource and the descriptions carefully separate similar pairs like get_application_context vs get_workspace_summary and get_broadcast_details vs get_broadcast_analytics. The main ambiguity is apply_actions vs validate_actions, since one runs the other's validation, but the descriptions make that relationship explicit.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently follow verb_object snake_case and use familiar verbs like create, get, list, and update. Minor deviations such as read_messages instead of list_messages, apply_actions/validate_actions with plural nouns, and run_flow_autotest are still predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools exceeds the 25-tool threshold and makes the surface feel heavy, even though the domain is broad. Many of the read-only getters are individually useful but could be consolidated, such as merging module catalog/details or workspace/application context.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: application lifecycle, flow editing through apply_actions, deployment, contacts, broadcasts, modules, and message/event reads. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated delete for contacts, applications, or broadcasts, and no rollback for deployments, but agents can work around or avoid these.

Resources