Flow Boards MCP Server

create_bin

Create a new bin in a Flow Board flow by supplying the bin name and the target flow ID.

Instructions

Create a new bin.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Bin name
`flowId`	Yes	Flow ID to add the bin to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Create a new bin' without explaining the side effects, required permissions, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient, containing no fluff. It could arguably add more context, but for a simple creation tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate, though not maximally informative.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not mention what happens after creation (e.g., returned object), how flowId relates to the bin's parent structure, or any constraints, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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%, so both 'name' and 'flowId' are already described in the input schema with clear definitions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema fully accounts for the parameters, earning the baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Create a new bin' uses a specific verb (create) and resource (bin), clearly distinguishing it from sibling bin tools like list_bins, get_bin, and update_bin. It lacks additional scope details but is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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