Sends a creative prompt to Google Flow and triggers generation in your personal workspace, with optional submit control and CSS selector targeting.
Injects a creative prompt into Google Flow and triggers generation in your personal workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | The prompt to send to Google Flow | |
| submit | No | Whether to submit after typing (default true) | |
| selector | No | Optional CSS selector for prompt input |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals a mutation side effect ('triggers generation') and hints at an auth scope ('your personal workspace'), but says nothing about required browser/session state, latency of generation, failure modes, or whether the action is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating browser-automation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description omits the setup sequence (browser launched, tab opened, logged in) that its sibling tools imply is mandatory. An agent could easily call it in the wrong state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents prompt, submit, and selector. The description adds no syntax, format, or selector-override guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: injects a prompt into Google Flow and triggers generation. An agent can distinguish it from generic siblings like flow_click or flow_eval_js, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of the relationship to sibling setup steps (flow_launch_browser, flow_open_tab). The agent must infer that the browser and a tab must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.