Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read_output_schema_version

Retrieve a historical output schema version by checkpoint number to compare differences and prepare for rollback.

Instructions

Read one historical version of a output_schema by its CHECKPOINT NUMBER (an integer like 3, from the version field in list_output_schema_versions) — not by its versionId. Use it to diff two versions before rolling back.

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>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "read_output_schema_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe output_schema's id.
versionYesThe integer checkpoint number, e.g. 3.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, so description shoulders the burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation with no side effects. Doesn't detail return structure or permissions, but adequate for a simple read tool.

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. First sentence states action and input, second provides use case. Front-loaded with essential information.

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 the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose and usage adequately. Could mention return value briefly, but not critical for a read tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by clarifying version is a checkpoint number from list_output_schema_versions, not a versionId, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 it reads a historical version of an output_schema using a checkpoint number, distinguishing it from reading by versionId or current version. The verb 'Read' and resource 'historical version' are specific.

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 says to use for diffing before rolling back, and notes not to use by versionId. Implicitly links to list_output_schema_versions. Could be stronger by mentioning alternative tools like read_output_schema for current version.

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