Skip to main content
Glama
jgt87

Copilot Studio MCP

by jgt87
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Start a flow run

cs_run_flow

Start a manually triggered Power Automate cloud flow with an optional payload. Requires confirm:true and runs for real, changing the live environment.

Instructions

Start a run of a manually triggered cloud flow, with an optional payload. Only flows whose trigger is manual or agent-callable can be started this way; scheduled and event-driven flows run on their own. Whatever the flow does (sending mail, writing records) happens for real, so this changes a live environment: requires confirm: true. Uses the Power Automate service (cs_login scope 'flow'). Unverified against a live tenant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowIdYesFlow id (cs_list_flows)
confirmNoRequired to actually perform a change in a live environment. Without it the tool returns a dry run.
payloadNoBody for the trigger
clientIdNoEntra app (client) id for MSAL. Defaults to CPS_CLIENT_ID, then the first-party VS Code id.
tenantIdNoEntra tenant id. Defaults to the workspace sync metadata, then CPS_TENANT_ID.
workspaceNoPath to (or inside) the agent workspace. Defaults to CPS_WORKSPACE or the current directory.
triggerNameNoTrigger key inside the definition (cs_get_flow lists them); default 'manual'
environmentIdNoPower Platform environment id (GUID). Defaults to workspace sync metadata or CPS_ENVIRONMENT_ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.8
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / payload / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden well: it warns effects are real (mail sent, records written), that a live environment is mutated, that absent confirm the tool does a dry run, the required cs_login 'flow' scope, and that it is unverified against a live tenant. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then safety warnings. Every sentence adds a distinct decision-relevant fact with no padding.

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?

Covers prerequisites, side effects, auth scope, and reliability caveat, which is thorough for an 8-param mutation tool with no annotations. The one gap is that it never indicates what a successful call returns (e.g., a run id usable with cs_get_flow_run), leaving the follow-up path implicit.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by framing payload as optional and tying confirm to live-vs-dry-run behavior, and by restricting the eligible flowId population to manual triggers. It leaves auth/workspace/environment params entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a run of a manually triggered cloud flow') and explicitly scopes which flows qualify. It is distinguishable from siblings like cs_list_flow_runs and cs_get_flow_run without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives both when-to-use and when-not: manual/agent-callable flows can be started, while 'scheduled and event-driven flows run on their own.' It also flags the confirm: true prerequisite, so the agent knows the call sequence.

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