Sergio by Serviche

Rename a flow or change its description

edit_flow

Idempotent

Changes a flow's name or description, as its editor on the Automations page does. Send only what changes. Its steps and how it starts are set in the editor (how it starts: set_flow_start). flow_id comes from read('flows'). Pass the same idempotency_key when retrying.

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>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "edit_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`flow_id`	Yes
`description`	No
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Your id for this operation (8-128 of A-Z a-z 0-9 . _ : -). Reuse it on every retry of the same operation; use a new one for a new operation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent writes; the description adds real value on top by disclosing partial-update semantics (only changed fields are sent) and the retry contract for idempotency_key. It stops short of saying what happens when no editable field is provided or what an error looks like.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then constraints, then parameter provenance, then the retry rule. The clause "as its editor on the Automations page does" adds a small amount of UI flavor but does reinforce the limited scope.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, partial-update behavior, parameter sourcing, and idempotency, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only gap is the response/return behavior and the empty-payload edge case.

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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description has to compensate: it explains where flow_id comes from (read('flows')) and reinforces idempotency_key reuse across retries, matching the one schema-documented parameter. The name and description parameters are left to their self-evident naming and schema constraints (length limits).

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?

States a specific verb and resource scoped precisely to a flow's name and description, and explicitly excludes steps and start configuration, naming set_flow_start as the sibling that owns the latter. An agent can distinguish this from set_flow_on, set_flow_archived, and remove_conversation_flow without opening any schema.

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?

"Send only what changes" gives the partial-update rule, and the pointer to set_flow_start routes the agent away from this tool for start configuration. It does not state whether at least one of name/description must be supplied or what happens if both are omitted, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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

All Sergio by Serviche tools Inspect

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

Need Help?