Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_prompt_snippet

Update a prompt snippet draft by reading its version first to avoid conflicts; pass only the fields you want to change.

Instructions

Update a prompt_snippet draft. Read it first to get expectedVersion; on a 409 conflict, read again and retry. Pass only the fields you are changing (camelCase) in fields.

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_prompt_snippet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe prompt_snippet's id.
fieldsYesThe fields to change, as a JSON object (camelCase keys).
expectedVersionYesThe version you last read — rejected with 409 if stale.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: draft-only update, conflict handling via expectedVersion, and partial field updates. It adds context beyond the schema but could mention that non-draft snippets cannot be updated.

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, no fluff, critical information front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the update workflow including conflict resolution and partial updates. Lacks detail on which fields are updatable (schema accepts arbitrary object) and whether non-draft states are handled, but given no output schema, it's sufficiently complete for the update operation.

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%; the description adds value by specifying that fields should use camelCase keys and that expectedVersion comes from a prior read. This clarifies parameter usage beyond schema definitions.

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 'Update a prompt_snippet draft,' identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_prompt_snippet, delete_prompt_snippet, etc., by focusing on updating an existing draft.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: read first to get expectedVersion, retry on 409 conflict, pass only changed fields in camelCase. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool effectively.

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