Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
google-flow-mcp

google-flow-mcp

by RohaanA
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get media

flow_get_media
Read-only

Fetches an image or video by its media ID, providing a fresh signed URL for secure access.

Instructions

An image or video with a fresh signed URL.

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_get_media"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
media_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description adds little on the safety axis. The one genuinely useful nugget is that a signed URL is returned 'fresh' each call, implying the URL may expire and should be used promptly, but no expiry, auth, or error behavior is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy. The single sentence spends its words on the return artifact instead of the tool's action, which is the wrong front-load for a selection decision.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With no output schema, no annotation coverage beyond readOnly, and 0% parameter documentation, the description carries the full burden and delivers almost none of it. An agent knows neither what the tool does with media_id nor what shape of 'signed URL' result to expect.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions media_id, its format, or where it comes from (e.g. a prior generation response). With a single undocumented required parameter, the description must compensate and completely fails to do so.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The sentence describes the return value ('An image or video with a fresh signed URL') rather than stating what the tool does. There is no verb and no resource action, so an agent cannot tell how this differs from the sibling flow_download_media. It is close to restating the title 'Get media' with output flavor.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus flow_download_media, flow_get_project, or any other retrieval sibling. Neither prerequisites nor exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools