Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_agent_policies

List the policies currently attached to an agent to verify links or inspect configurations for reuse.

Instructions

List the policy currently scoped to an agent — the read-back for attach_policy_to_agent. Use it to confirm a link took, or to read a source agent's wiring before recreating it. Read-only.

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": {
      "agentId": "<agentId>"
    },
    "name": "list_agent_policies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentIdYesThe agent's id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Read-only' which is clear, but does not elaborate on authentication needs, rate limits, or whether results are paginated. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, and read-only flag. No unnecessary words.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's role as a companion to attach_policy_to_agent. It could mention the expected return format (e.g., list of policy objects) but is otherwise complete for its simplicity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. It mentions 'the agent' but does not elaborate on the parameter format or validation.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'policy currently scoped to an agent', and distinguishes it by calling it the read-back for attach_policy_to_agent. This makes its purpose distinct from sibling tools like 'list_policies' which lists all policies.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'to confirm a link took, or to read a source agent's wiring before recreating it'. This provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, which would elevate it to a 5.

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