[Requires Pro+ plan] [DEPRECATED — scheduled for removal] Get the trigger URL and trigger type for an HTTP-triggered flow from the Power Clarity cache. Read directly from the stored flow record — no live Power Automate API call is made. Use get_live_flow_trigger_url for a guaranteed-fresh URL.
| 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?
The annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds behavioral context beyond them: it reads from a stored flow record, makes no live Power Automate API call, requires Pro+, and is deprecated. This clearly sets expectations about staleness, side effects, and availability.
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: the key constraints are stated first, followed by the operational detail, then the alternative. Every sentence add meaningful guidance with no filler.
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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the source of data, the fact no live call is made, the plan requirement, the deprecation status, and the alternative tool. The only minor gap is that the exact return shape is not described, but the tool name and first sentence already tell the agent what it returns: the trigger URL and trigger type.
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 flowName and environmentName are already documented in the schema. The description does not add much parameter-level detail, but it does not need to since the schema provides sufficient meaning. 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource: retrieving the trigger URL and trigger type for an HTTP-triggered flow. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the live version by stating it reads from the Power Clarity cache rather than making a live API call, which makes it immediately identifiable among sibling tools.
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 provides explicit usage context: it is a cached read returning the stored trigger URL, and it points directly to get_live_flow_trigger_url when a guaranteed-fresh URL is needed. It also surfaces the Pro+ requirement and deprecated status, helping an agent decide whether to invoke it at all.
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.
