Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Flodesk MCP Server

Flodesk MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Retrieve a segment.

get_segment
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific Flodesk segment by ID to inspect its details, optionally scoped to a configured private account profile.

Instructions

Retrieve a segment.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_segment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesExact native path parameter.
accountNoExact configured private account profile label; not a tenant or provider account ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline – no note on behavior when the id is not found, no indication of what is returned, and no mention of the account resolution semantics. It contributes zero behavioral context.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence and thus technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the tool name, and the sentence earns no informational value.

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 simple read tool with a fully documented 2-parameter schema and annotations covering safety, the description still leaves key gaps: what a segment contains, how id and account interact, and what happens on a missing or unauthorized segment. No output schema exists to fill these in.

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%: the id parameter is documented as an "Exact native path parameter" and account as an "Exact configured private account profile label." The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description why it would call get_segment rather than list_segments or list_segment_colors, and no prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing segment id) are mentioned.

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