Set active=true on a flow or subflow after verifying its type. This metadata update does not compile or perform the Flow Designer publish lifecycle. [Write]
Set active=true on a flow or subflow after verifying its type. This metadata update does not compile or perform the Flow Designer publish lifecycle. [Write]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Type: flow or subflow (default flow) | |
| flow_sys_id | Yes | Flow or subflow sys_id to publish |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / type / enumAdded value: +[
+ "flow",
+ "subflow"
+]v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds what the annotations cannot: that the effect is a metadata flag change with no compile or lifecycle side effects. It also notes type verification happens first. It doesn't mention permissions or what is returned, keeping it below 5.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the core semantics front-loaded and the limiting caveat immediately after. The trailing '[Write]' tag is redundant with the annotations but costs little.
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 two-parameter, no-output-schema metadata mutation, the description covers effect, scope limits, and safety well enough to call correctly. Only explicit permission/prerequisite and return behavior are unstated, which is minor here.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the enum for type is explicit. The phrase 'after verifying its type' hints the type param matters, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Set active=true on a flow or subflow') and clarifies the scope is metadata-only rather than a real Flow Designer publish. An agent can distinguish it from trigger_flow/test_flow/publish_changeset, though the description never names those siblings by name.
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 line 'does not compile or perform the Flow Designer publish lifecycle' effectively functions as a when-not caveat, steering the agent away if it expects a build/deploy. It does not name an explicit alternative for the full publish lifecycle, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.