Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_connector

Update a connector draft by providing its id, expected version, and fields to change. Prevents stale updates and keeps authentication config as placeholder.

Instructions

Update a connector draft (a tool of type 'connector'). Read it first for its version; keep authConfig as placeholders only.

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>",
      "expectedVersion": "<expectedVersion>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "update_connector"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe connector (tool) id.
fieldsYesFields to change (camelCase).
expectedVersionYesVersion last read — 409 if stale.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions draft status and placeholder requirement for authConfig, but does not disclose side effects, limits, or authentication needs. Concurrency control is implied via 'expectedVersion' but not explained.

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 with no redundancy. Every word adds value, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

For a 3-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (read first, update draft, placeholder authConfig). Lacks information about return behavior or error handling, but adequate for an update tool with good schema descriptions.

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%, but description adds meaning by specifying that authConfig in 'fields' should be placeholders only, which is not in the schema's description of 'Fields to change (camelCase)'. This extra context improves 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 the action ('Update') and resource ('connector draft'), and distinguishes it from sibling update tools by specifying it's for connectors and must keep authConfig as placeholders.

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 advises to 'Read it first for its version' and 'keep authConfig as placeholders only', providing clear steps and constraints. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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