Fetch run history for a flow directly from Power Automate. Returns run name, status, startTime, endTime, trigger name/code, and any top-level error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Max runs to return. Paginates automatically. Default 30. | |
| 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 mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds value by stating that it pulls live data from Power Automate and by enumerating the returned fields, including 'any top-level error,' which is useful behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations and does not need to disclose destructive effects since none exist.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, source, and return payload without wasted words. Every part contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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?
Given the simple read-only nature, no output schema, and full parameter coverage in the schema, the description supplies the key missing context: what the run history contains. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though it could be slightly stronger on how it differs from related error/action-output tools.
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 the parameters are already well documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch run history for a flow directly from Power Automate.' It names the expected return fields (run name, status, startTime, endTime, trigger name/code, top-level error), and the phrase 'directly from Power Automate' distinguishes it from sibling store-flow tools like get_store_flow_runs.
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 implies usage by saying 'directly from Power Automate,' which suggests it is for live flows rather than store flows. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings such as get_live_flow_run_error or get_live_flow_run_action_outputs, nor does it mention when not to use it.
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.
