Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Send4

by ai.send4
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read a flow

read_flow
Read-onlyIdempotent

One flow: settings, persona, triggers, and every card with its settings and where each outcome leads (next: a card id, "stop" or "flow:"). Trust next: outcomes can depend on settings. complete: false means the flow did not fit or you asked for less: every card and wire is there, but not all settings, which card_ids reads. A value shown as {"redacted": true, ...} is a recipient list, calendar, routing key or pasted sample, summarised on purpose.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "flow_id": "<flow_id>"
    },
    "name": "read_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNo`outline` leaves out card settings and persona text.
flow_idYesFrom `list_flows`.
card_idsNoOnly these cards keep their settings.
include_variablesNoAlso list the `{{ path }}` variables a card can use. `render_only` paths cannot be branched on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / flow_id / description
      Added value: +"From `list_flows`."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioural context: `complete: false` means the payload was truncated in settings only, not in cards or wires, and values rendered as {"redacted": true, ...} are deliberately summarised recipient lists, calendars, routing keys, or samples. That is real disclosure an agent would not get from the schema.

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?

About four sentences, each carrying information: payload contents first, then the `next` trust rule, then truncation semantics, then redaction. It is dense and the truncation sentence is a run-on, but nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does: card structure, where outcomes lead, truncation signalling, and redaction markers. The main omission is error or not-found behaviour and whether there are size limits that trigger `complete: false`.

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 parameters are already documented and baseline is 3. The description adds the interaction between `complete: false` and card_ids, which schema text alone doesn't make obvious, but detail and include_variables are not elaborated beyond what the schema already says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies exactly what is returned for a single flow: settings, persona, triggers, and every card with its settings plus outcome wiring. The implicit verb is a full read of one flow, and the flow_id note ('From `list_flows`') separates it from the list sibling. It stops short of naming near-neighbours such as get_flow_map or check_flow, so the reader must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: you call it with a flow_id obtained from list_flows, and you can lower detail to `outline` or narrow settings with card_ids. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_flow_map, check_flow, or preview_flow_status, and no when-not guidance.

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

All Send4 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