INITE Directory

Connect another INITE server

inite_connect

Read-onlyIdempotent

How to add another INITE MCP server to this client, when the person wants something this one does not do. With no argument, the server beside this one; for, the one that does a job; all: true, every server. Returns the URL, the Claude Code command and the custom-connector step.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "inite_connect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`all`	No	true: every server, with install links. Ignored with `for`.
`for`	No	What the person wants next; returns the server that does it

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`more`	No
`doors`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`others`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / all

Added value: +{
+  "description": "true: every server, with install links. Ignored with `for`.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / for / description

Previous value: -"What the person wants to do next; omit for every server"New value: +"What the person wants next; returns the server that does it"

addedOutput schema / properties / more
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / others

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / total
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "doors"
-]New value: +[
+  "doors",
+  "total"
+]

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns connection artifacts rather than mutating anything, but discloses nothing further about behavior, prerequisites, or failure modes; with an output schema present, the return-value detail is largely redundant.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose and trigger first, then the three argument modes, then what comes back. No filler, and the alternative-path information is front-loaded before the parameter recap.

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 zero-required-parameter lookup with full schema coverage, an output schema and complete safety annotations, the description covers the essential unknown (default behavior with no argument) plus the intent trigger. Missing only guidance on what to do if the returned connection information fails or when it should be re-invoked.

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, but the description adds genuinely new meaning: the zero-argument default ('the server beside this one'), which the schema does not state at all. It also glosses `for` as 'the one that does a job' and `all: true` as 'every server,' reinforcing rather than duplicating the enum documentation.

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 a specific action (add another INITE MCP server to this client) and frames it as retrieving connection info rather than performing the connection, which the closing sentence about returning a URL, Claude Code command and custom-connector step makes concrete. It is distinguishable from the atlas_*/match_* siblings, though it never names an alternative connector-related tool.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: use it 'when the person wants something this one does not do,' which is a clear when-to-use condition. It also explains usage of each argument mode (no argument, `for`, `all: true`), but offers no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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

All INITE Directory tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.