flow_statusCheck sign-in status for Flow and retrieve remaining credit balance. Use to verify authentication and credits before generating AI videos.
Check that the MCP browser is signed in to Flow and return the remaining credit balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what the call actually inspects and returns (sign-in state plus credit balance), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of saying what happens when the browser is not signed in (error vs. a boolean flag) or whether the credit read requires an authenticated call.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no filler, and the primary outcome (sign-in check) is front-loaded ahead of the secondary one (credit balance).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers both the purpose and the return content, which is the essential information. The only real gap is failure-mode behavior when the browser is unauthenticated, which an agent would likely need in order to handle the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No argument syntax or scoping options are relevant here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (check) plus two concrete outcomes: sign-in state of the MCP browser and remaining Flow credit balance. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all list/create/generate/edit operations rather than diagnostics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. A preflight intent (e.g., verify auth before calling flow_generate_video) can be inferred, but the description never says when an agent should call this versus simply attempting another Flow tool and handling an auth error.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.