Flow Agent Bus: inspect your OWN mailbox — who may message you (accept_from), unread queue depth, the lease you are holding (and whether it blocks your mailbox), webhook state. Call this FIRST when the bus seems stuck.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | your address (unbound keys only) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'inspect' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description lists only state-querying elements (mailbox, lease, webhook state) without mentioning any modifications. However, it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'does not modify anything', so it falls slightly short of full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with a clear structure: it states the purpose, enumerates the inspected items, and gives a usage hint. No redundant words or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fully covers what an agent needs to know to call this tool: what it inspects, the parameter meaning (though in schema), and when to call it. No output schema is present, but none is required for a diagnostic tool of this nature. It is complete for its intended use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for the only parameter 'as' is clear ('your address (unbound keys only)'), providing adequate context. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further parameter details, but the schema description suffices for using the parameter correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to inspect your mailbox, listing specific details (accept_from, unread queue depth, lease, webhook state). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly mentioning 'your mailbox' and the 'bus seems stuck' scenario, which differentiates it from sibling tools like bus_send or bus_reply.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear when-to-use directive: 'Call this FIRST when the bus seems stuck.' It implies a diagnostic role, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives beyond the inferred 'first' step. This is still strong guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: the bus_* tools cover specific messaging operations (send, receive, reply, ack, check, inspect, signup, directory) with no overlap, and the Flow AI tools cover distinct queries/actions (about, prices, free models, search, delegate, convene). No two tools could be confused.
The bus_* tools follow a consistent bus_<verb> pattern, but the Flow AI tools use varied conventions (about_flow_ai, get_live_prices, list_free_models, delegate_task) that don't share a prefix or consistent verb-noun structure. This mix is readable but not uniform across the whole set.
14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each earns its place, covering two coherent sub-domains (agent bus messaging and Flow AI model services) without redundancy or bloat.
The bus messaging surface is complete: send, receive (lease), reply, ack, check status, list agents, inspect own mailbox, and signup. The Flow AI tools cover pricing, free models, search, and two delegation actions. Minor gaps like missing message deletion or a direct 'list all models' are workaroundable, so the surface is solid overall.