Skip to main content
Glama
Rustysama

Postfjord

by Rustysama
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Read a Flow

postfjord_get_goal
Read-only

Read a Flow’s details, status, plan, assets, and results to check progress or prepare an update or launch.

Instructions

Read only. One Flow (a goal that became posts, a comment-to-DM automation, a page and welcome emails): what the person asked for, its dates, its status (proposed; built, when every part was made as a draft in the app for the person to check; launched, done, cancelled; a launched Flow with closedAt is closed to new signups, its emails still going to the people in, with closeReason manual, date or cap), its automatic close (autoClose: the last day to sign up and the number of signups, and signupCount so far), the plan with its planHash, missing, what the launch made (assets: the tag, form, page, automations and post ids) with notes on anything left as a draft, and the results: posts published and scheduled, comments that started a DM, DMs sent, addresses given, people who confirmed, emails sent and clicked, page views and taps, and signups through the page. The results are counted at most every five minutes. Read this before postfjord_update_goal or postfjord_launch_goal, and to answer "how is my flow doing".

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalIdYesThe goal id from postfjord_plan_goal or postfjord_list_goals.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are 'counted at most every five minutes' (data freshness), and it decodes status/autoClose/closeReason semantics that an agent would otherwise have to guess. It also discloses that some outputs may be drafts via launch notes.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded correctly with 'Read only' and the resource name, but the body is a single sprawling sentence with deeply nested parentheticals covering status, autoClose, plan, assets and every metric. The content earns its place, but the structure makes it hard to parse and it would benefit from being split into separate lines.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: it enumerates plan/planHash/missing, assets (tag, form, page, automations, post ids), and a full results block (posts, DMs, signups, page views/taps). Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating it comes from postfjord_plan_goal or postfjord_list_goals. The description adds no further constraint on goalId (format, validity), so baseline 3 is correct.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with an explicit verb+resource ('Read only. One Flow') and then defines what a Flow actually is (a goal that became posts, a comment-to-DM automation, a page with welcome emails), which no sibling tool defines. An agent can tell this apart from postfjord_list_goals or postfjord_get_analytics without opening a schema.

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 explicit sequencing ('Read this before postfjord_update_goal or postfjord_launch_goal') and a concrete user-intent trigger ('how is my flow doing'). No explicit when-not or exclusion (e.g. bulk listing vs single goal) is stated, keeping it just short of a 5.

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