InfraPulse

Connect InfraPulse account

connect

Idempotent

Create, inspect, or explicitly approve a private OAuth-bound InfraPulse connection. OAuth proves owner identity; requested InfraPulse operational scopes remain server-side and privileged scopes stay pending until the authenticated owner approves them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	No	Follow-up action for an existing connection. Defaults to status.
`scopes`	No	InfraPulse operational scopes requested for a new connection. These are approved and stored by InfraPulse, never copied into the OAuth token.
`agent_id`	No	Required only when the OAuth identity owns multiple linked InfraPulse agents.
`request_id`	No	Stable idempotency key for a new connection request.
`connection_id`	No	Server-generated connection id for status or approval follow-up.
`approved_scopes`	No	Optional subset to approve when action=approve.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`data`	No
`error`	No
`intent`	No
`status`	No
`receipt`	No
`success`	No
`request_id`	No
`next_action`	No
`operation_id`	No
`requires_human`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: scopes remain server-side, are not copied into the OAuth token, and privileged scopes stay pending until the authenticated owner approves them. It does not detail side effects of suspend/resume/refresh_funding, but annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the OAuth/scoping sentence earns its place by explaining the security model behind the tool.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and the key OAuth/scope semantics, while parameters and output schema are well documented elsewhere. It omits follow-up actions like suspend/resume/refresh_funding, but those are already enumerated in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful conceptual model for scopes and approval that enriches request_id, scopes, connection_id, and approved_scopes, though it does not provide per-parameter detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description states specific verbs (create, inspect, approve) and a clear resource (private OAuth-bound InfraPulse connection). It is not a full 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like authorize or execute.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool for OAuth-bound connection lifecycle operations and approving pending scopes. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All InfraPulse tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct phase or concern: discovery, quoting, authorization, execution, connection management, and receipt verification. There is no meaningful overlap between tool responsibilities.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names are single imperative verbs (authorize, connect, discover, execute, quote), which is consistent and predictable. verify_receipt breaks the pattern slightly by using verb_noun, but the intent remains clear.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped set for a workflow-oriented infrastructure API. Each tool maps to a clear stage in the operation lifecycle without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: discover, quote, authorize, execute, and verify_receipt. Minor gaps exist around canceling authorizations or revoking connections, but these are not critical to the primary execution workflow.

Resources

Need Help?