Fetch the full native Power Automate flow JSON from the PA API, including the complete flow definition (triggers, actions, parameters, outputs). Returns the raw properties object exactly as the PA API returns it. Use this to inspect the full definition before calling update_live_flow with a modified definition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flowName | Yes | Name (ID) of the flow. | |
| environmentName | Yes | Name of the Power Platform environment. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating it returns the raw properties object exactly as the PA API returns it and that it includes the complete definition, which helps the agent expect unfiltered, exact output.
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 three sentence-fragments long, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then states the return behavior, then gives usage guidance. Every sentence contributes useful, non-redundant information.
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?
This is a simple read-only getter with two fully described parameters and no output schema. The description explains what the return value is, what it contains, and how it should be used in a larger workflow. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (flowName and environmentName) are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add meaning about the parameters themselves, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and names the exact resource: the full native Power Automate flow JSON from the PA API, including triggers, actions, parameters, and outputs. This distinguishes it clearly from related flow tools like get_live_flow_runs, get_live_flow_http_schema, and update_live_flow.
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 explicitly recommends using this tool to inspect the full flow definition before calling update_live_flow with a modified definition. This gives the agent a concrete usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it against other read-only flow siblings.
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.
The consistent live/store prefixes and clear resource nouns make most tools distinguishable, and deprecated tools explicitly flag replacements. However, the duplicated live-vs-cache surfaces and multiple run/error-history tools can still require careful reading to choose correctly.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with stable qualifiers like live, store, flow, and run. Even meta-tools like list_skills and tool_search fit the same convention, and the few longer names such as add_live_flow_to_solution remain predictable.
34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and the set is inflated by live/store duplication plus four deprecated tools scheduled for removal. Several tools could be consolidated or dropped without losing capability.
The server covers the main flow lifecycle well: list/get/create/update, state changes, running, resubmission, run diagnostics, environments, connections, and solution migration. Notable gaps include no delete flow, no remove-from-solution operation, and read-only connection management, which agents can partially work around.
