Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

request_publish_company

Request publication of your company document for human approval. Initiate a pending approval process when direct publishing is restricted.

Instructions

Request that the company document be published. Like request_publish_* for every other entity, this does NOT publish — it creates a pending approval a human approves in Axonity. Company is a singleton, so unlike the others this takes NO id: the server resolves the one company from your tenant. (Direct company publish is closed to service tokens — this is the only path.)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "request_publish_company"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
changeSummaryNoA short note for the approver on what changed and why.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that the tool does NOT publish immediately, but creates a pending approval for a human in Axonity. Also notes the singleton nature and that no id is required. No annotations are present, so description carries full burden and fulfills it well.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary 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 single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the behavioral aspects thoroughly: the approval workflow, singleton nature, and restriction on direct publish. It is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% (one parameter changeSummary with description). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 'request' and resource 'company document published', and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that company is a singleton and takes no id, unlike other request_publish_* tools.

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?

Explicitly explains that this tool does not publish but creates a pending approval, and that direct company publish is closed to service tokens, making this the only path. Also compares to other request_publish_* tools, providing clear context.

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