Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DevFlow MCP Server

DevFlow MCP Server

by FaerberK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

devflow_tokens_list

List active discipline tokens for a flow and inspect their metadata to determine whether a new token is needed. Avoids duplicate emissions by revealing existing skills without exposing raw tokens.

Instructions

List active (non-expired) discipline-tokens for a flow. Does NOT return raw tokens — only metadata (id, skillName, createdAt, expiresAt, evidence). Use this to check what a flow already has before deciding whether to emit a fresh one.

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": {
      "flowId": "<flowId>"
    },
    "name": "devflow_tokens_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowIdYesFlow id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.35.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently states that the tool does NOT return raw tokens, only metadata fields (id, skillName, createdAt, expiresAt, evidence). No behavioral ambiguities or contradictions.

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by guidance. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple nature (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, return content, and usage context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'flowId' described as 'Flow id'. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond that, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing active tokens for a flow, and explicitly distinguishes itself from emitting tokens by mentioning 'deciding whether to emit a fresh one.' It uses a specific verb and resource, differentiating from siblings like devflow_token_emit.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to check what a flow already has before deciding whether to emit a fresh one.' It implies not to use it if raw tokens are needed, but does not explicitly name an alternative or list exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools