Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Axonity Flow MCP Server

Axonity Flow MCP Server

Official
by AxonityAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_tool

Update a tool draft by providing the fields to change and the expected version; if a conflict occurs, re-read the current draft and retry.

Instructions

Update a tool 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_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe tool'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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations present, so description carries burden. Discloses conflict behavior and partial update capability, but doesn't mention authentication or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with purpose upfront, no wasted words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 conflict handling, partial updates, and parameter usage. Lacks return value description, but acceptable given no output schema. Overall sufficient for a simple update tool.

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 covers all parameters (100%). Description adds value by explaining the expected version workflow and the camelCase requirement for fields, going beyond schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states 'Update a tool draft' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on tool drafts, though not explicitly differentiating from other update tools.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: read first to get expectedVersion, handle 409 conflicts, and pass only changed fields. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but offers 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