google-flow-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Read the learned API map

flow_api_map

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves previously discovered tRPC endpoints from flow_discover_api, showing their input/output key shapes and transport tier.

Instructions

Return the tRPC endpoints previously learned by flow_discover_api, with their input/output key shapes and transport tier.

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_api_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`response_format`	No	markdown for reading, json for programmatic use	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds specific behavioral context (what data is returned: endpoints, shapes, transport tier). No contradictions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, front-loaded, no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description completely explains the return value (endpoints, shapes, transport tier). Low complexity but fully adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a well-described parameter (response_format). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns tRPC endpoints previously learned by flow_discover_api, with input/output key shapes and transport tier. It distinguishes from sibling flow_discover_api (learning vs reading).

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?

Implicit usage context (after flow_discover_api) is clear, but no explicit when-not or alternatives are mentioned. The description does not exclude misuse.

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