Skip to main content
Glama

Power Automate MCP Server by Flow Studio

by io.github.ninihen1
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Run flow

trigger_live_flow

Run a flow on demand — the same as the maker portal's "Run flow" button. Works with Request triggers (HTTP request, manual Button, PowerApps) and with scheduled RECURRENCE flows, which run immediately; a scheduled flow takes no inputs, so passing body to one is refused. Pass trigger inputs as body. Automated connector triggers only fire from their source event.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoJSON body to POST to the trigger URL. Omit for flows that expect an empty body.
flowNameYesName (ID) of the flow.
connectionsNoOnly for a flow whose connections are provided by whoever runs it. Map of connection-reference name to the connection id to run it with, e.g. {"shared_office365users":"shared-office365user-…"}. Omit unless the result told you the connection picked was wrong; ids come from list_live_connections.
environmentNameYesName of the Power Platform environment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / connections
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only for a flow whose connections are provided by whoever runs it. Map of connection-reference name to the connection id to run it with, e.g. {\"shared_office365users\":\"shared-office365user-…\"}. Omit unless the result told you the connection picked was wrong; ids come from list_live_connections.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, non-destructive). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: scheduled recurrence flows execute immediately, take no inputs, and refuse a `body`, while automated connector triggers cannot be manually fired at all. It omits auth/permissions and expected success behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and the portal analogy, then the trigger-type constraints. Every clause carries constraint information, though the middle sentence is information-packed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the invocation-critical concerns for a non-idempotent mutation: which trigger types accept it, what inputs are valid, and what is rejected. It could say more about what is returned (e.g., a run id) but is otherwise adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top by clarifying that trigger inputs are passed as `body` and that `body` is refused for scheduled flows, tying the parameter to trigger-type behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (run/trigger a flow) and anchors it to the maker portal's "Run flow" button, making intent unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes the action from read/update siblings like get_live_flow and update_live_flow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains precisely when the tool applies (Request triggers, manual Button, PowerApps) and when it cannot be used (automated connector triggers only fire from their source event), plus the scheduled-recurrence case. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives for the cases where it doesn't apply.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Power Automate MCP Server by Flow Studio toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources