Retrieve an authorized flow and its latest revision by UUID without executing it. Use to inspect flow details before running.
Read one authorized flow and its latest revision; does not execute it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flowId | Yes | Exact Daykeeper resource UUID; access is checked by the API. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| effect | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds value by clarifying it returns the flow plus its latest revision and does not execute it, but it offers no detail on access failures or error behavior beyond 'authorized'.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope and ends with the critical non-execution disclaimer. Zero wasted words.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope and non-execution. It is nearly complete but leaves the relationship to sibling list/version tools implicit, which an agent might need when choosing between them.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% — the flowId parameter is fully documented with a UUID pattern and an access-check note. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb (Read), a resource (one authorized flow), and the scope (its latest revision). It also immediately disclaims execution, which distinguishes this retrieval tool from any execute sibling.
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?
Implicit guidance exists — it's a retrieval tool meant to inspect a single flow, and the 'does not execute it' clause clarifies it cannot be used to run a flow. However, the description never names an alternative (e.g., daykeeper_flows_list or daykeeper_flow_versions_get) or states when to prefer this over those siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.