Return the next step for a flow. Pass the goal (flow id) and the id of the last completed step (omit after for the first step). Run each step's detect command FIRST and skip the run command when detection passes. The design step also returns that flow's complete starter ALTER_INTEGRATION.md.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | The flow id (setup goal or modify operation). | |
| after | No | Id of the last completed step (e.g. "2", "3a"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description takes on the burden and adds non-obvious behavior: it instructs a detect-then-run sequence and reveals that the design step returns a complete starter ALTER_INTEGRATION.md. It stops short of detailing the full return object or error cases, but the disclosed workflow traits are valuable.
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?
Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, argument semantics, and special behavior. No filler or repetition of schema text.
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?
For a two-parameter read-style navigation tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains invocation, argument conventions, and the one special step that returns extra content. It would benefit from stating the shape of the returned step, but the detect/run references imply the fields.
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?
Schema already covers both parameters at 100%, and the description adds the crucial 'omit after for the first step' convention plus clarifies goal as a flow id. This goes beyond the schema, meriting more than the baseline.
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 opens with an explicit verb-resource pair ('Return the next step for a flow'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list_phases or get_operation_schema. The goal parameter enum reinforces that it is a step navigation tool.
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?
Provides direct operational guidance: pass goal and after, omit after for first step, and run detect before run with a skip condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the workflow instructions make the intended use unambiguous.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct concerns: docs, provider operations, SDK wiring, policies, troubleshooting, and verification. However, get_started with no arguments overlaps with list_phases, and fetch_doc/list_skills both provide guidance content, creating minor ambiguity.
The set mostly follows a verb_noun pattern: fetch_doc, list_operations, list_providers, verify_integration, troubleshoot. A few names like policy_language, sdk_integration, and sdk_pattern are noun-led, which is a small consistency break but still predictable and readable.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal range for a focused onboarding server. Each tool contributes to a different part of the onboarding workflow, and none feel redundant or like filler.
The server covers the full onboarding journey: docs, lifecycle phases, step-by-step flows, provider API discovery, schema retrieval, SDK integration, SDK patterns, policy grammar, troubleshooting, and verification. There are no obvious dead ends or major missing operations for its stated purpose.
