Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_flow_by_name

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific flow by its name from the AIMFP project management system.

Instructions

Get flow by name (fairly frequent)

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": {
      "flow_name": "<flow_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_flow_by_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flow_nameYesFlow name to look up

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which indicate safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds no behavioral trait beyond 'fairly frequent', which is a usage frequency note. This does not contradict annotations but adds minimal value.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence with a parenthetical, making it very concise. It is front-loaded with the core function. The parenthetical is slightly informal but not detrimental.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not describe what the return value is (a flow object), which would be helpful given no output schema. It is sufficient but could be more informative.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'flow_name' with description 'Flow name to look up', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional information about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get flow by name (fairly frequent)' clearly states the action (get) and resource (flow by name). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_all_flows or get_flows_for_file, which retrieve flow data in different ways.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical 'fairly frequent' implies common usage but offers no context, exclusions, or conditions for its use.

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