flowforge-mcp

flowforge_get_assistant

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single assistant's configuration by ID, with optional prompt variables, flow, knowledge base, stats, or export bundle for inspection and reuse.

Instructions

Retrieve a single assistant's configuration by ID, optionally with its prompt variables, flow, knowledge base, stats, or export bundle.

Args: params: assistant_id (required), detailed (full config when true), include (sub-resources), response_format.

Returns: The assistant object; with include, an object keyed assistant plus one key per sub-resource (a failed sub-fetch holds its error).

Error Handling: Returns "Error: Resource not found..." if the ID is wrong.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "flowforge_get_assistant"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the per-sub-resource result shape under 'include' and that a failed sub-fetch is returned as an error field rather than failing the whole call. The explicit not-found error string is also useful, though rate limits and pagination are unaddressed.

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?

Front-loaded summary followed by short Args/Returns/Error Handling blocks; nothing is padded. The Args block partly restates the schema and the Returns block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

For a read-only tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers the identifier, the optional expansions, partial-failure behavior, and the not-found case. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With reported schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does list all four inputs including which is required and what 'detailed' toggles. It stops short of enumerating the 'include' values and response_format behavior, so the compensation is good but not complete.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a single assistant's configuration by ID') and scopes it to one record with optional sub-resources, which implicitly separates it from flowforge_list_assistants and flowforge_update_assistant. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the optional 'include'/'detailed' knobs but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer flowforge_list_assistants or flowforge_assistant_lifecycle, and no prerequisites (auth, permissions) called out. An agent can infer the read-by-ID case but must guess the boundaries.

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

Deploy Server