Run a saved browser automation flow immediately and return its result, with each execution stored under runs/ for later review.
Run a saved flow now and return its result (also stored under runs/).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Flow name (lowercase letters, digits, - and _). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| steps | Yes | ||
| extract | No | ||
| trigger | Yes | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| startedAt | Yes | ||
| durationMs | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: execution is immediate ("now"), it returns a result, and that result is persisted under runs/. It stops short of noting runtime/error behavior or side effects on the flow itself.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, immediacy, return value and persistence side effect are all packed into one line.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the risk profile. For a one-parameter execution tool the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with a pattern and format note, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only the word "saved," which implies the name must reference an existing flow — marginal added value, baseline 3.
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?
A specific verb ("Run") plus resource ("a saved flow"), with the added scope note that it executes immediately and returns the result. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings flow_save/flow_list, though "saved flow" hints at the prerequisite artifact.
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?
Usage is implied by "saved flow" (a flow must exist first) but the description never states when to use this versus flow_save or flow_list, nor any preconditions or exclusions. An agent can infer intent but must guess at the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.