Sets a flow live and publishes its draft first, enabling the automation to run for contacts. Returns a plan limit error if live flow capacity is reached.
Activate a flow. Sets the flow live. Publishes the draft first when there is one, exactly like the builder's toggle. Plans cap live flows (403 plan_limit_reached). Send {} as the body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine context beyond them: the implicit draft-publish side effect and the specific plan-limit failure mode (403 plan_limit_reached), both of which affect an agent's decision to call it.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then side effects, then failure mode. Every sentence carries information, though the body instruction could be folded in more cleanly rather than placed last.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers effect, side effect, and the main error condition. It could be stronger by stating what happens when the flow is already live (relevant since idempotentHint is false) and by routing to publish_flow versus this tool.
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% with a single required integer id, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's "Send {} as the body" adds a small structural hint but is slightly ambiguous alongside a required id property, and it doesn't clarify where the id is supplied.
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 and resource ("Activate a flow. Sets the flow live") and adds the key mechanism that the draft is published first. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related publish_flow and pause_flow siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary between "activate" and "publish".
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?
Usage is implied by the effect (making a flow live, mirroring the builder's toggle), which gives the agent a clear mental model. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative among publish_flow, pause_flow, or update_flow, which is a real gap given several overlapping siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.