Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
flow-team-mcp

flow-team-mcp

by baekbeombyeon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List Flow projects

list_projects

Retrieve a paginated list of Flow projects from the Flow Team API. Use the cursor parameter to navigate through pages of up to 500 projects, with customizable API key and base URL.

Instructions

Flow 프로젝트 목록을 조회합니다.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiKeyNo
cursorNo페이징 커서. 기본값 0, page size 500
baseUrlNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what authentication (apiKey) is required, or pagination behavior, even though the cursor parameter implies pagination.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, making it concise, but it is under-specified. It conveys the basic purpose yet lacks structure or additional context, providing little beyond the tool name.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It fails to mention pagination, authentication requirements, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only cursor described), and the description adds no parameter semantics. apiKey and baseUrl are left undocumented, and the description does not explain how they relate to the tool's use.

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 'Flow 프로젝트 목록을 조회합니다' clearly states the action (list) and resource (Flow projects). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_flow_endpoints by focusing on projects, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the listing action, with no context on pagination, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools might be 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