Skip to main content
Glama
nobrainer-tech

langflow-mcp-server

by nobrainer-tech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

agentic_execute

Run a named Langflow agentic assistant flow with user input and optional provider, model, session, and iteration settings.

Instructions

Execute an agentic assistant flow by name with the given assist request fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flow_idYesFlow ID
providerNoOptional provider
flow_nameYesAgentic flow name to execute
field_nameNoOptional target field name
model_nameNoOptional model name
session_idNoOptional session ID
input_valueNoUser input/instruction (server-configured limit)
max_retriesNoOptional max retries (1-5)
component_idNoOptional target component ID
history_limitNoOptional assistant history limit (0-100)
iterations_limitNoMaximum assistant iterations (1-200)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changedv4.12.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / component_id / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / field_name / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / history_limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional assistant history limit (0-100)",
+  "type": [
+    "number",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / input_value / description
      Previous value: -"User input/instruction"New value: +"User input/instruction (server-configured limit)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / input_value / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / iterations_limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Maximum assistant iterations (1-200)",
+  "type": [
+    "number",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / max_retries / description
      Previous value: -"Optional max retries"New value: +"Optional max retries (1-5)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / max_retries / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / model_name / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / session_id / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  2. First observedv4.11.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether this is synchronous or long-running, whether it streams, what side effects it may have, what auth or session requirements apply, or what it returns. For an 11-parameter execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single 14-word sentence with no filler — efficient and front-loaded with the action. It is not padded, but it is also so short that the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous similar siblings, this one-line description leaves the agent without the information needed to select it confidently or use it safely. Given the complexity signals here, more detail was warranted.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema (including ranges like max_retries 1-5 and history_limit 0-100). The description's phrase 'with the given assist request fields' adds no meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('agentic assistant flow') and adds the mechanism 'by name'. It is clearly understandable in isolation, but it does nothing to distinguish this tool from close siblings such as agentic_assist, agentic_assist_run, run_flow_session, or process_flow — an agent cannot tell which of these to pick from the description alone.

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 versus the many sibling execution tools (agentic_assist, agentic_assist_stream, agentic_assist_run, run_flow, run_flow_advanced). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of when this is the wrong choice. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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