Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_output_schema_versions

List version history of an output schema to find checkpoints and major versions for restoring a specific version.

Instructions

List a output_schema's version history — checkpoints (every save) and major versions (named releases). Use this to find the versionId you need for restore_output_schema_version.

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": "list_output_schema_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe output_schema's id.
typeNoWhich kind to list. Defaults to all.
limitNoDefault 50.
offsetNoDefault 0.

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 provided. Description mentions listing checkpoints and major versions but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or response format. Adequate for a list operation but could add more 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the action and key details. Every sentence adds value.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description explains the version types and the use case for restoration. It lacks explicit mention of response structure but the schema describes parameters well. Slightly incomplete for an agent expecting return format, but functional.

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%. Description clarifies how parameters relate to version types (checkpoint, major, all) and the purpose (restore). However, it does not add significant syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists version history of an output schema, distinguishing between checkpoints and major versions. It also specifies the use case (finding versionId for restore). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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 directs the agent to use this tool to find a versionId for restore_output_schema_version. It implies the need for an output_schema id. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the purpose is clear among similar list_versions siblings.

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