google-flow-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

flow_project

Create, open, or check the active project that stores ingredients, storyboard, takes, audio, and films for video production.

Instructions

Create or open a project (it becomes the active one), or show the active project's status.

A project is a folder holding ingredients, a storyboard, takes, audio and finished films.

Args: name: Project name. New name = create; existing name = open. Omit to see the status. title: Display title. logline: One-sentence summary of the piece. aspect_ratio: '16:9' (default) or '9:16' for Shorts/Reels. style: A look applied to every shot, e.g. 'warm watercolor picture book'.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "flow_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`style`	No
`title`	No
`logline`	No
`aspect_ratio`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the key side effect that the project becomes active and explains what a project contains. It omits how existing content is treated when opening, whether creation is destructive or additive, permission requirements, and what the status mode actually returns.

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-loads the create/open/status behavior in the first sentence, then defines the domain object, then enumerates args. Efficient overall, though the duplicate 'Args' listing of names already in the schema is somewhat redundant even where it adds meaning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema, five-parameter lifecycle tool, the description covers inputs and mode selection well but leaves the agent guessing about the status response shape and mutation consequences on open. Enough to call it, not enough to predict results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args block is essential and it documents all five parameters, including the default ('16:9'), the allowed intent for aspect_ratio ('9:16' for Shorts/Reels), and an illustrative example for style. It does not specify validation or format constraints beyond the example, so not a 5.

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?

Names specific verbs and the resource: create, open, or show status of a project, and clarifies that it becomes the active one. The three-mode behavior is stated explicitly, so an agent can identify the tool's role; sibling differentiation is only implicit (no other flow_* tool deals with project lifecycle), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete selection logic for each mode: 'New name = create; existing name = open. Omit to see the status.' That is genuinely actionable routing within the tool. No when-not guidance or prerequisites (e.g., what happens if the name collides or the project is already open) are offered.

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