sitecore_personalize_flow_getRetrieve a complete flow definition by its unique ref, enabling quick inspection of experiment or experience configurations.
Retrieves the full definition of a single flow (experiment or experience) by its ref.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flowRef | Yes | The unique reference (ref) of the flow definition. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys this is a read-only retrieval operation returning a full definition, not a mutation or execution. It does not detail error cases or response format, but for a simple get-by-ref tool, the behavioral trait is sufficiently clear.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, and includes the key scoping detail ('single flow', 'by its ref') without any filler or repetition.
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 tool with one simple required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is retrieved, its scope, and how to identify it. It could add a note about what 'full definition' includes or error behavior when the ref is invalid, but this is not a significant gap for a straightforward getter.
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?
The schema already documents flowRef with a clear description and minLength constraint, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, only restating that lookup is by ref. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves'), identifies the resource ('full definition of a single flow'), and specifies the lookup key ('by its ref'). It clearly distinguishes this from listing flows or modifying flow status, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools without opening schemas.
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?
The description clearly implies the tool is used when the agent has a flow ref and needs the complete definition of one flow, as opposed to listing flows or changing status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'single flow' and 'by its ref' phrasing provides adequate contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.