Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

restore_company_version

Roll back a company draft to an earlier version using the version UUID. Only the draft changes; live content stays until published.

Instructions

Roll the company draft back to an earlier version. Takes the versionId (a UUID from list_company_versions), not the checkpoint number. Changes only the draft; what is live stays live until a human publishes.

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": {
      "versionId": "<versionId>",
      "expectedVersion": "<expectedVersion>"
    },
    "name": "restore_company_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionIdYesThe version row's UUID.
expectedVersionYesThe draft version you last read — 409 if stale.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that changes are only to the draft and live stays unchanged. It lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or potential side effects.

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, 28 words. Every word serves a purpose, front-loaded with the action.

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?

Covers core behavior and parameter hints. Missing return value description and conflict handling details, but adequate for a simple restore 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value for versionId (UUID source), but expectedVersion is not elaborated beyond the schema's description.

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 'Roll back' and the resource 'company draft'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it affects only the draft, not the live version.

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?

It explains that versionId should come from list_company_versions and clarifies the scope (draft vs live). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct alternatives among siblings.

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