Resubmit a failed or cancelled Power Automate flow run via the live PA API, re-using the original trigger payload. Discovers the trigger name from the flow definition automatically — no trigger name parameter needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 convey that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent action. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it automatically discovers the trigger name from the flow definition, which explains why the trigger name is not a parameter. It does not mention potential side effects like creating a new run instance, but the annotations plus the 'resubmit' verb cover the core safety profile.
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 redundant wording. The main purpose and key behavioral detail are front-loaded, and the note about trigger name discovery is concise and useful.
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 three-parameter action with clear annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe the return value or outcome, but given the straightforward 'resubmit' semantics and lack of output schema, this is a minor gap.
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 three parameters are already well documented. The description adds extra value by explaining that no trigger name parameter is needed and why (automatic discovery), which is semantic context not available in the schema.
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 ('Resubmit') with a clear resource ('failed or cancelled Power Automate flow run') and method ('via the live PA API'). It also states a distinguishing behavior ('re-using the original trigger payload') that separates it from sibling tools like trigger_live_flow or cancel_live_flow_run.
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 gives clear usage context: it is for failed or cancelled runs and reuses the original payload, implicitly telling agents when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the conditions are evident enough to guide selection.
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.
