Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

attach_skill_to_workflow

Attach a specific skill to an existing workflow, allowing the workflow to leverage the skill's capabilities during execution.

Instructions

Scope a skill to a workflow so the workflow uses it.

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": {
      "workflowId": "<workflowId>",
      "skillId": "<skillId>"
    },
    "name": "attach_skill_to_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skillIdYes
workflowIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the attachment replaces existing ones, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if an attachment already exists.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure and sufficient detail. It is front-loaded but minimal.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with two required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the effect, return value, or side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (skillId, workflowId). The mention of 'skill' and 'workflow' is generic, providing no guidance on how to obtain the IDs or what values are valid.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Scope a skill to a workflow so the workflow uses it' clearly indicates the tool associates a skill with a workflow, distinguishing it from 'attach_skill_to_agent' which targets an agent.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'attach_skill_to_agent' or preconditions (e.g., workflow and skill must exist). Lacks context for usage.

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