Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_output_schemas

Retrieve all output schemas from your Axonity tenant, including id, name, status, and version, to review reusable step and agent output contracts.

Instructions

List all output schemas (reusable step/agent output contracts) in your Axonity tenant (id, name, status, version).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_output_schemas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 carries the full burden. It discloses the read nature ('List') and the fields returned, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, pagination, or if the result is a full list. The additional context ('reusable...') adds value but basic behavioral traits are missing.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence of 15 words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields (id, name, status, version) and explains the concept of output schemas. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., array) or any limitations (e.g., ordering, maximum count). Slight gap in completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are no parameters in the input schema (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4 per instructions. The description does not need to add parameter information since none exist.

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 'output schemas', and distinguishes it from siblings like read_output_schema and list_deleted_output_schemas by specifying the scope ('all') and the specific fields returned (id, name, status, version). It also defines output schemas as 'reusable step/agent output contracts', adding clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for obtaining a list of all output schemas, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_output_schema for details). The sibling list includes many related tools, but no guidance is provided for selection.

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