get_flow_endpointLire l’adresse du formulaire public ou du webhook généraliste (secret non exposé).
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_flow_endpoint"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the secret is not exposed ("secret non exposé"), which tells the agent the returned value is safe to surface. It says nothing else about errors, missing endpoints, or when rotation invalidates the address.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the verb and the returned resource. The parenthetical caveat is well placed. It is arguably too terse given what is omitted, but nothing present is wasteful.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the bar is modest, and the description covers the essential idea plus one behavioral caveat. It still leaves the `id` undocumented and does not clarify how the two endpoint variants are selected. The French wording in an otherwise English toolset also adds friction for an agent reasoning across siblings.
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?
There is one required parameter, `id`, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never references it. With such low coverage the description is expected to compensate by explaining what the identifier refers to, but it does not. The single named concept in the description (public form vs. generalist webhook) is not tied back to any input.
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 does state a specific verb and resource: reading the public form address or the generalist webhook ("Lire l'adresse du formulaire public ou du webhook généraliste"). However, it never mentions a "flow", matching or contrasting with the tool name, and it does not distinguish this from siblings such as rotate_flow_endpoint or get_payment_page_webhook. The purpose is inferable but not sharply bounded.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this rather than rotate_flow_endpoint, save_flow, or the various form/payment-page webhook getters. Nothing indicates prerequisites, such as whether the flow must have a public form enabled, or what happens when no endpoint exists. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
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.