Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Postfjord

by com.postfjord
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read a Flow

postfjord_get_goal
Read-only

Read only. One Flow (a goal that became posts, a comment-to-DM automation, a page and welcome emails): what the person asked for, its dates, its status (proposed; built, when every part was made as a draft in the app for the person to check; launched, done, cancelled; a launched Flow with closedAt is closed to new signups, its emails still going to the people in, with closeReason manual, date or cap), its automatic close (autoClose: the last day to sign up and the number of signups, and signupCount so far), the plan with its planHash, missing, what the launch made (assets: the tag, form, page, automations and post ids) with notes on anything left as a draft, and the results: posts published and scheduled, comments that started a DM, DMs sent, addresses given, people who confirmed, emails sent and clicked, page views and taps, and signups through the page. The results are counted at most every five minutes. Read this before postfjord_update_goal or postfjord_launch_goal, and to answer "how is my flow doing".

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": {
      "goalId": "<goalId>"
    },
    "name": "postfjord_get_goal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalIdYesThe goal id from postfjord_plan_goal or postfjord_list_goals.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety, yet it adds genuinely new behavior: results are "counted at most every five minutes" (data latency), what closedAt/closeReason mean for a launched Flow, and what autoClose contains. That is the kind of freshness and state-model context annotations cannot carry.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Almost the entire definition is a single sentence with deeply nested parentheses enumerating every returned field and result metric, which makes it hard to scan. The information largely earns its place because there is no output schema, but the structure could be broken up and front-loaded with usage guidance.

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 has to carry the return shape, and it does: status lifecycle values with definitions, close semantics, autoClose contents, plan/planHash, assets, and the full result/metric set. It also covers the freshness caveat and when to call it, leaving no meaningful gap for a one-parameter read tool.

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% and the goalId description already tells the agent to get the id from postfjord_plan_goal or postfjord_list_goals. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Read only. One Flow" states a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical defines what a Flow is and what the tool returns (request, dates, status, plan, assets, results). It also names the two siblings it precedes, so an agent can place it. It falls short of 5 only because the core statement is buried in one very long run-on sentence.

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?

"Read this before postfjord_update_goal or postfjord_launch_goal" gives an explicit sequencing rule, and "to answer 'how is my flow doing'" gives a concrete use case. It does not say when to prefer a sibling instead (e.g. get_analytics), so it is short of the full 5.

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

All Postfjord 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