Execute Google Flow actions through browser automation: create, edit, run, export, or navigate flows by name. Use it to automate Flow workflows and retrieve delivery-ready results.
Execute a Google Flow action through browser automation (create, edit, run, export)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | The action to perform | |
| flowName | Yes | Name of the Flow to act on | |
| parameters | No | Additional parameters for the action |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Browser automation' hints that a live authenticated session is needed, but it never states prerequisites (login, check_session), whether actions are destructive or reversible, or how failures surface — all critical for a tool that drives a UI and can export or run flows.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from disciplined pruning.
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 no-annotation, no-output-schema dispatcher with a nested free-form parameters object and heavy sibling overlap, the description is far too thin. It should state session prerequisites, per-action side effects, and how it relates to the dedicated create_flow/trigger_flow/flow_browser_generate_video tools.
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%, so the three parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about what keys belong in the free-form 'parameters' object per action — arguably the biggest ambiguity in this schema — and it omits 'navigate' from its action list.
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 names a verb-and-resource ('Execute a Google Flow action through browser automation') and enumerates four of the five enum actions. But it never distinguishes this generic dispatcher from siblings like create_flow, trigger_flow, or flow_browser_generate_video, which appear to overlap on the same actions. The parenthetical also silently drops the 'navigate' action that the enum allows.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling flow_* and flow_browser_* tools. The agent must infer that this is a catch-all dispatcher, and nothing says when the dedicated per-action tools are preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.