Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_workflow_runs

List all runs of a given workflow, optionally filtering to show only archived runs.

Instructions

List the runs of one workflow. Note this route takes archivedOnly (show ONLY archived runs), which is not the same as list_runs' includeArchived.

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": {
      "workflowId": "<workflowId>"
    },
    "name": "list_workflow_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workflowIdYesThe workflow's id.
archivedOnlyNoTrue to list only archived runs. Defaults to false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or any side effects. The description only adds a parameter clarification and sibling comparison.

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 very concise, only two sentences, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key distinction.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key differentiation from a sibling. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and does not describe the return format or any additional context needed for effective use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting the contrast between 'archivedOnly' and list_runs' parameter, but it does not explain the purpose or constraints of 'workflowId' beyond what is in the schema.

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 tool lists runs of one workflow, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_runs' by noting the difference in the archivedOnly parameter.

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 provides context on when to use this tool versus list_runs by highlighting the distinct naming 'archivedOnly' vs 'includeArchived', giving clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or other alternatives.

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