Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_prompt_snippet_versions

View version history of a prompt snippet, including checkpoints and major releases, to locate a version ID for restoration.

Instructions

List a prompt_snippet's version history — checkpoints (every save) and major versions (named releases). Use this to find the versionId you need for restore_prompt_snippet_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_prompt_snippet_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe prompt_snippet'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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it lists both checkpoints and major versions, but does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or that it is a read-only operation. The description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately connects to a related action.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure (e.g., list of version objects with ids). It adequately covers purpose and usage but leaves out response format.

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 all 4 parameters. The description's mention of 'checkpoints (every save) and major versions (named releases)' adds marginal context beyond the schema's 'Which kind to list. Defaults to all.' Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'prompt_snippet version history', explicitly distinguishing checkpoints from major versions. It also ties to a sibling tool (restore_prompt_snippet_version), differentiating it among many similar list-version 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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool to find the versionId needed for restore_prompt_snippet_version, providing a clear use case. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to read_prompt_snippet_version, but the context is sufficient.

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