Skip to main content
Glama
software-mansion

Argent

Official
by software-mansion
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

flow-finish-recording

Finalize an in-progress flow recording, save the recorded steps as a YAML flow file, and return a summary with the execution path and prerequisites.

Instructions

Finish recording the flow named by name + project_root, leaving recordings under any other key untouched. Returns { message, path, executionPrerequisite, steps, summary, flowFile, savedTo } - a summary of all recorded steps plus the final YAML. Use when you have added all desired steps and want to finalize the flow file. Fails if that flow has no recording in progress. A warning flow-add-step raised on a recorded await-ui-element is repeated in summary as a warning: line of its own, right below the step it judges, and message counts them by kind. A warning is repeated only while the step it judges is still identifiable by its number: hand-editing the .yaml during the recording moves the steps, so those warnings are DROPPED rather than pinned on whichever step inherited the number, and message says how many were dropped. A step that carries a cross-tree warning was re-probed against the runner's tree: read it before converting that wait to await:/assert:, which is what the verdict is about and what this moment is for. A step that recorded a wait which did not pass was never probed at all, and its own warning names the CAUSE, because only one of them judges the condition: an unmet wait was read and found false, and it stops the run at replay; a wait whose tree source could not be read, or one that was cancelled, observed nothing and leaves the condition UNKNOWN rather than known-bad. Read those before replaying. You can still edit the .yaml file directly afterwards to remove or reorder steps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the flow being recorded — the one passed to flow-start-recording.
project_rootYesAbsolute path to the project root of the flow being recorded — the same value passed to flow-start-recording. Together with `name` it identifies which recording to finish.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.20.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Name of the flow being recorded — the one passed to flow-start-recording.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_root
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute path to the project root of the flow being recorded — the same value passed to flow-start-recording. Together with `name` it identifies which recording to finish.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "name",
+  "project_root"
+]
  2. First observedv0.15.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so thoroughly. It explains side effects (leaving other recordings untouched), the return shape, failure conditions, and the nuanced warning propagation/dropping behavior for hand-edited YAML, cross-tree warnings, unmet waits, and UNKNOWN conditions. It even notes that the YAML can still be edited afterward.

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?

The description is long but dense, with no filler. Core purpose, return value, and usage guidance are front-loaded in the first paragraph, while the later paragraphs explain important warning and replay semantics that genuinely affect how the result should be interpreted. It could be tightened, but every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, the absence of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return keys, the failure condition, the subtle warning behavior, what to read before replaying, and the option to edit the YAML afterward. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that `name` and `project_root` together identify the recording and must match the values passed to flow-start-recording, but this adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema's own wording. Schema coverage does the heavy lifting here.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Finish recording the flow named by `name` + `project_root`' and distinguishes this from related recording tools by stating it finalizes the flow and returns the recorded steps plus final YAML. It also gives the exact use case: 'Use when you have added all desired steps and want to finalize the flow file.' This clearly separates it from siblings like flow-add-step.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: after all desired steps have been added and the flow file should be finalized. It also states a precondition/failure mode: 'Fails if that flow has no recording in progress.' It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the usage context is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/software-mansion/argent'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server