flow_capabilitiesLists Google Flow features, maps each to the tool that covers it or notes website-only access, and reports costs and plan limits so you can choose the right action.
Lists Flow's features, which tool covers each (or that only the Flow website can), costs and plan limits. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint; the description adds genuinely new behavioral information – that the call is free, and that some features are only available on the Flow website rather than via any tool. That saves an agent from searching for a nonexistent tool. It stops short of describing return shape or size.
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?
One dense sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the payload details and the cost note. Every clause carries information.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema and a read-only annotation, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns, that it costs nothing, and that some features have no tool equivalent. A hint about the response format would make it fully complete.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline applies; no parameter explanation is needed.
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?
Specific verb and resource ('Lists Flow's features') with an explicit account of the content: feature-to-tool mapping, website-only features, costs and plan limits. It reads clearly as a discovery/meta tool, though it doesn't name which siblings it overlaps with (flow_status, flow_credits both touch status/credits territory).
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?
'Free' implies it's safe to call without burning credits, which is implicit guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or direction to flow_status/flow_credits for narrower questions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.