Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cognigy-ai-mcp-management-server

cognigy-ai-mcp-management-server

by TsvetanG2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript

get_node

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves detailed configuration of a node in a Cognigy.AI flow to inspect its type, label, config, and settings before making changes.

Instructions

Gets detailed configuration of a specific node in a Cognigy.AI flow. Returns the node's type, label, config fields, and settings. Use this to inspect node behavior before modifying it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "flowId": "<flowId>",
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>"
    },
    "name": "get_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowIdYesThe flow ID containing the node
nodeIdYesThe node ID to retrieve
localeIdNoOptional locale ID for localized content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's mention of returning configuration details adds value without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and return information with no unnecessary words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists the return fields (type, label, config fields, settings), which is sufficient for a read tool with fully documented parameters and safe annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%; all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond that, so baseline score of 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 it 'Gets detailed configuration of a specific node' (verb+resource) and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_nodes' (list) and 'update_node' (modify).

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to inspect node behavior before modifying it.' This sets a clear context for usage, though it does not exclude other scenarios or compare with siblings like 'get_node_descriptors'.

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