Fetch error details for a specific flow run from the live Power Automate API. Lists every failed action with its error code and message to help diagnose what went wrong.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Max actions to return. Paginates automatically. Omit for all. | |
| runName | Yes | Run identifier (name field from get_live_flow_runs). | |
| 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 readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing what the tool returns: each failed action with its error code and message. It does not cover pagination behavior or empty results, but the annotation safety picture is already complete.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first identifies the operation and resource, the second identifies the output shape and purpose. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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?
All required parameters are documented, the output semantics are described, and the read-only behavior is covered by annotations. There is no explicit mention of the empty/no-error response, but the definition is complete enough for an agent to call 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 every parameter is already well documented. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the overall context of retrieving failures, so the baseline 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?
States a specific action ('Fetch error details'), a specific resource ('a specific flow run from the live Power Automate API'), and a concrete outcome ('Lists every failed action with its error code and message'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that list runs or fetch action outputs.
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 clear context: this is the tool to use when diagnosing what went wrong in a flow run. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use them, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended use is evident.
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.
