symflow-mcp

sym_api

Call any Symphony JSON endpoint from the signed-in tab when no documented tool exists, enabling custom operations within SymFlow.

Instructions

Developer escape hatch: call a Symphony JSON endpoint from inside the signed-in tab (path relative to https://ads.tiktok.com). Use only when a documented tool cannot do it.

Tool call template

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "sym_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`path`	Yes
`query`	No
`method`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: the call runs inside the signed-in tab and the path is relative to https://ads.tiktok.com. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, method semantics, error behavior, or that arbitrary endpoints may include mutating operations, beyond the vague 'escape hatch' label.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose and main constraint are front-loaded, and the usage rule follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is a generic API passthrough with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description provides the critical base URL and a strong usage guardrail, but it omits practical invocation details such as how to set the HTTP method, structure query parameters, or interpret responses. It is minimally viable but not complete for an agent unfamiliar with the underlying endpoint conventions.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 4 undocumented parameters. It explains the `path` parameter is relative to the base URL, but gives no guidance on `method`, `query`, or `body`. The meaning of these parameters is left to HTTP convention rather than clarified for the agent.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'call a Symphony JSON endpoint'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by labeling the tool a 'developer escape hatch' to be used only when documented tools cannot do the job, making its generic role clear.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use only when a documented tool cannot do it.' This is a direct when/why-not rule, and the alternatives are implicitly the documented sibling tools. No inference is required.

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