Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_flow

Idempotent

Updates metadata for a specified flow, including name, description, and confidence score.

Instructions

Update flow metadata

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_id": "<flow_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flow_idYesFlow ID to update
nameNoNew name (NULL = don't update)
descriptionNoNew description (NULL = don't update)
confidence_scoreNoNew confidence score (NULL = don't update)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false, but the description does not reinforce these traits or explain side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema's 'NULL = don't update' hint.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately brief for a simple update operation.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose but omits details like partial update behavior (only non-null fields are updated) and return value expectations (no output schema). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, more context would improve completeness.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning or usage tips beyond what is in the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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 clearly states the action ('update') and resource ('flow metadata'), indicating the tool modifies metadata fields of a flow. It is sufficiently specific among siblings like 'update_theme' or 'update_type', though it doesn't enumerate the exact fields.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., 'update_theme', 'update_file'). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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