Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_flows_to_directive

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all directive flows that lead to a given directive. Understand prerequisites for a directive by finding what leads to it.

Instructions

Get all directive flows leading to a directive (what leads here?). Useful for understanding directive prerequisites.

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": {
      "to_directive": "<to_directive>"
    },
    "name": "get_flows_to_directive"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
to_directiveYesTarget directive name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate read-only nature. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the scope (all flows leading to directive), which is sufficient given the existing 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 sentences with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the key action and resource, followed by a usage hint. Highly efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return format, but is adequate as is.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description 'Target directive name'. The description adds only the parenthetical hint, which does not significantly enhance parameter meaning. Baseline 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'directive flows leading to a directive', and distinguishes from sibling 'get_flows_from_directive' by specifying direction ('leading to'). The parenthetical '(what leads here?)' further clarifies intent.

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?

The description states it is 'useful for understanding directive prerequisites', which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'get_flows_from_directive' or 'get_directive_flows', though the tool name and sibling list provide differentiation.

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