Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

clone_flow

Fork a flow into a new tenant-owned copy to safely edit or customize without affecting shared framework flows.

Instructions

Fork a flow into a new, independent, tenant-owned copy — including a framework-provided one. Prefer this over editing a framework flow directly: it is visible and NOT actually protected from update_flow/ delete_flow (a backend gap, despite what its docstrings claim), so editing one in place risks changing something other tenants share.

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": {
      "flowId": "<flowId>"
    },
    "name": "clone_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowIdYesThe flow's id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the cloned copy is independent but not actually protected from updates/deletion despite docstring claims, and that editing in place risks affecting other tenants – critical behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded main action; the second sentence is slightly long with a parenthetical comment but remains efficient and valuable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral caveats. It lacks mention of return value but is otherwise complete for the context.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'flowId', so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'The flow's id.' but implicitly clarifies that it can include framework-provided flows.

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 uses specific verbs 'fork' and 'copy', clearly identifies the resource 'flow', and distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_flow and delete_flow by emphasizing independence and tenant ownership.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly advises when to prefer this tool over editing a framework flow directly, warns about the backend gap (lack of protection from update_flow/delete_flow), and explains the risk of modifying shared flows.

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