google-flow-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Download media

flow_download_media

Download an image or video from Google Flow to a local file, returning the saved path so you can reuse the asset in your workflow.

Instructions

Download an image or video to a local file. Returns the path.

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": {
      "media_id": "<media_id>"
    },
    "name": "flow_download_media"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`out_dir`	No
`media_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a side effect (writing a local file) and a return value (the path), which is useful, but it omits where files land by default, filename derivation, overwrite behavior, or failure modes for an invalid media_id.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than wasteful, but the structure itself is efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, and while the description states the return is a path, it leaves the optional out_dir parameter meaningless and provides no guidance on download scope or errors. For a tool with 0% param documentation, an agent cannot call it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both media_id and out_dir are undocumented anywhere. The phrase 'local file' faintly gestures at out_dir but gives no semantics, default, or format, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Download) and resource (image or video) and the destination (local file), which is clearer than most siblings. However, it never distinguishes itself from flow_get_media, which an agent would plausibly choose for the same media, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closest alternative (flow_get_media). The agent must infer that this tool persists bytes locally while flow_get_media likely does not.

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