Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

restore_workflow

Return a soft-deleted workflow to active status, ignoring stale-version guards but checking for name or slot conflicts with live workflows.

Instructions

Undo delete_workflow — bring a soft-deleted workflow back. Takes no version check (a restore must never lose to a stale-version guard). Can 409 if a live workflow now holds a name/slot this one also claims.

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": "restore_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe workflow's id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses key behaviors: it bypasses version guards (no version check) and can conflict with live workflows (409). Does not mention permissions, side effects, or restore state, but covers important traits.

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 purpose and key behavioral note. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 purpose, key behavioral nuance, and common error. Missing links to delete_workflow and list_deleted_workflows, and assumes understanding of soft-delete. Adequate given simplicity and no output schema.

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 baseline 3. Description adds no extra meaning to the single 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides. Adequate but does not improve semantics.

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?

Description clearly states it undoes delete_workflow and restores a soft-deleted workflow. The verb 'restore' paired with 'workflow' is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_workflow, list_deleted_workflows, and restore_workflow_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?

Implied use case is after a soft-delete. Mentions no version check and potential 409 conflict, giving context. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives (e.g., restore_workflow_version for restoring a specific 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