Skip to main content
Glama
AxonityAI

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI

Related Servers

Alternatives to Axonity Flow MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to build and manage Genesys Cloud resources such as queues, skills, users, wrap-up codes, Architect flows, and outbound campaign cadences, while deliberately preventing deletes and leaving campaigns off until humans start them.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables autonomous AI agents to securely access and execute external tools, such as GitHub REST API operations, with per-user authentication, authorization, audit logging, and observability.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to programmatically create, manage, and execute independent Python workflow scripts with full CRUD operations, allowing AI to build and modify automation workflows themselves rather than just executing pre-built ones.
      6
      2
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables controlled AI-agent access to enterprise-shaped tools with a deny-by-default gated write path, human approval, dry-run execution, and append-only audit logging.
      1
      -
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to securely call enterprise MCP tools with tenant-scoped RBAC, human approvals, audit logging, and multi-tool workflows across customer, order, document, and ticket data.
      -

    TDQS

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 242 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Every tool embeds its entity and operation in the name (list_workflows, update_agent, restore_flow_version), so selection is unambiguous even across 242 tools. Potentially confusable clusters like execute_tool vs dry_run_tool vs execute_stored_connector and restore_X vs restore_X_version vs restore_deleted_X_version are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The set follows a rigid snake_case verb_noun pattern: list_/read_/create_/update_/delete_/restore_/request_publish_/discard_*_draft, with version operations consistently suffixed (_versions, _version, _published) and list tools pluralized. The single non-verb outlier, axonity_conventions, is a deliberate read-me-first marker rather than a genuine pattern break.

    Tool Count2/5

    At 242 tools, the surface is far beyond even the 16-25 'heavy' band and sits in the extreme-mismatch territory. The count is inflated by repeating an identical ~18-tool lifecycle template across ten-plus entity types, which could have been compressed into parameterized entity operations. The systematic repetition makes it navigable, but the selection burden on an agent is severe.

    Completeness4/5

    Coverage of the draft→publish lifecycle is exceptionally thorough: every entity has CRUD, soft-delete/restore, deleted-list, draft discard, publish approval, full version history (including deleted-version recovery and major-version naming), and published-read variants, plus run, trigger, prompt-stack, and wiring tools. Minor gaps remain: cron and webhook triggers have no update operation (only conditional triggers do), and there is no way to cancel or withdraw a pending publish approval.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive