Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read_flow_published

Read the published version of a flow as used by the runtime. Diff it with the draft to preview pending publish changes.

Instructions

Read the LIVE published version of a flow — what the runtime actually uses, as opposed to the draft that read_flow returns. Diff the two to see what a pending publish would change.

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": "read_flow_published"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe flow's id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that this reads the published version (not draft), implying read-only behavior. However, it lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple read tool, it is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded with key information ('LIVE published version'), no unnecessary words, efficiently conveys purpose and usage.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the schema fully describes the single parameter, no output schema, and the description explains what the tool returns and how it relates to the draft, it is complete for a simple read tool.

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% with one parameter 'id' described as 'The flow's id.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states it reads the live published version of a flow, contrasting it with the draft version read by 'read_flow'. The verb 'Read' and resource 'published version of a flow' are specific, and the description immediately distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'read_flow'.

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?

Provides clear context: use to get what the runtime actually uses. Explicitly contrasts with 'read_flow' and suggests diffing to see pending publish changes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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