flowforge-mcp

flowforge_get_organization

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve your FlowForge organization record, optionally including call concurrency limits, in JSON or Markdown for review or processing.

Instructions

Get your FlowForge organization's settings, optionally with concurrency limits.

Args: params: include_concurrency flag, response_format.

Returns: JSON/Markdown with an organisation object and, if requested, a concurrency object.

Error Handling: Returns "Error: ..." on failure.

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_organization"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that failures surface as "Error: ..." strings and that the result is scoped to 'your' organization; it says nothing about permissions required, rate limits, or whether the org is resolved from credentials versus a parameter.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args/Returns/Error Handling sections are short and scannable. The Returns section largely duplicates the existing output schema, which is the only real waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With a single nested parameter, thorough annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is sibling routing against flowforge_update_organization and the other read tools, which it never addresses.

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?

The Args block restates include_concurrency and response_format, which the schema's $defs already document in more detail (including the json-vs-markdown tradeoff and the default). It adds the useful framing that concurrency is fetched 'alongside' the org record, but contributes no syntax or value guidance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get your FlowForge organization's settings') plus the optional add-on (concurrency limits), so the agent knows exactly what is fetched. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as flowforge_update_organization, flowforge_get_usage, or flowforge_get_balance, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 only implied: read org settings here, mutate them via the update sibling (never named). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites such as authentication or org scoping, and no guidance on when include_concurrency is worth the extra fetch.

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

Deploy Server