Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read_skill_published

Access the live published version of a skill to compare against its draft, revealing any pending modifications that would take effect upon publishing.

Instructions

Read the LIVE published version of a skill — what the runtime actually uses, as opposed to the draft that read_skill 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_skill_published"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe skill's id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the read operation but does not explicitly state read-only nature, permissions, or potential side effects. It adds value by explaining the purpose but lacks confirmation of safety and constraints.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains what it does, how it differs from the sibling, and suggests a use case (diffing).

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter 'id'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 reads the LIVE published version of a skill, explicitly contrasting it with read_skill which returns the draft. It specifies what the runtime uses and distinguishes the tool from its sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description tells when to use this tool (to get the published version) and suggests diffing with the draft to see pending changes. It explicitly names the alternative (read_skill for the draft), meeting the criteria for explicit guidance.

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