Skip to main content
Glama
nobrainer-tech

langflow-mcp-server

by nobrainer-tech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

replace_policy_bundle

Atomically replace the full provider, model, component, template and integration policy bundle, using the revision you read first to prevent conflicts. Supply every list; empty lists explicitly clear that policy.

Instructions

Atomically replace the complete provider, catalog, model and integration policy bundle using an expected revision (Langflow 1.13). Read the current bundle and supply every list; empty lists explicitly clear that policy.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoOptional change reason, max 1024 characters
expected_revisionYesRevision read before the replacement
blocked_model_keysYes
approved_provider_idsYes
blocked_template_keysYes
blocked_component_keysYes
blocked_integration_action_keysYesAction policy keys from loaded integration capabilities, in integrations.<provider_id>.<action> format
approved_integration_provider_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv4.13.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / approved_integration_provider_ids
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / blocked_integration_action_keys
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Action policy keys from loaded integration capabilities, in integrations.<provider_id>.<action> format",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "expected_revision",
-  "approved_provider_ids",
-  "blocked_component_keys",
-  "blocked_template_keys"
-]New value: +[
+  "expected_revision",
+  "approved_provider_ids",
+  "blocked_component_keys",
+  "blocked_template_keys",
+  "blocked_model_keys",
+  "approved_integration_provider_ids",
+  "blocked_integration_action_keys"
+]
  2. Addedv4.12.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does well on replacement semantics ('atomically', 'complete', empty lists clear that policy) and implies optimistic concurrency via expected_revision. It omits what happens on a stale revision (error vs overwrite), whether the operation is reversible, required permissions, and whether auditing/history is recorded.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the operational rule about reading first and how empty lists behave. Nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation touching security policy with 8 parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and the full-replace rule but leaves out conflict behavior, returned state, and authorization requirements. Adequate to attempt a call, not to call it confidently.

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?

With only 38% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it adds a genuinely useful rule: supply all lists, and empty lists explicitly clear policy (full-state replace, not patch). It also clarifies that expected_revision is read beforehand. However, the four list families are only named, not differentiated in semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: atomically replacing the complete provider/catalog/model/integration policy bundle, with the version marker Langflow 1.13. It is distinguishable from single-scope siblings like replace_model_provider_policy by the word 'complete', but never names those siblings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Read the current bundle and supply every list' gives a clear prerequisite workflow and points implicitly at get_policy_bundle. It does not state when to prefer this umbrella tool over the narrower per-scope replace tools, so an agent must infer that.

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