[Requires Pro+ plan] Get full details for a single Power Automate flow from the Power Clarity cache. Includes trigger URL, owners, state, run statistics, and governance metadata. Data is from the stored snapshot — not live from the Power Automate API.
| 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 mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond that, including a plan requirement and the cache/snapshot behavior. It doesn't describe error cases or staleness, but for a safe read operation this is sufficient.
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 compact and front-loaded: first the action and resource, then the key caveats. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no repetition of the tool name or schema.
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 simple read operation with only two string parameters, the description covers the source, the scoping, and the general content of the response. It could explicitly mention what happens if the flow is not in the cache, but the overall guidance is adequate.
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?
The input schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Get full details for a single Power Automate flow from the Power Clarity cache.' It further distinguishes itself by specifying the data source is a stored snapshot, not the live API, which separates it from siblings like get_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 communicates when to use this tool: when full flow details are needed from the cached snapshot rather than live API data. It doesn't explicitly list alternative tools, but the 'not live from the Power Automate API' clause provides a clear exclusion criterion that helps route the agent.
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.
