User Intuition

Configure External Panel

configure_external_panel

Idempotent

Create or replace a customer-supplied panel bridge on an owned BYOP study. Supply completion and screen-out redirect URLs; set the provider's respondent ID query parameter and placeholder if the defaults differ. Optional session, external study, quota-full, and technical-failure mappings are supported. Before sharing entry_url with the provider, call get_study, verify provisioning_status=provisioned, and have the human approve the current plan and URL mapping. This does not recruit respondents or launch the paid User Intuition Panel. Repeating the same PUT preserves the current entry token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`provider`	No		custom
`study_id`	Yes
`organization_id`	No	Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet.
`session_id_param`	No
`respondent_id_param`	No		respondent_id
`complete_redirect_url`	Yes
`screenout_redirect_url`	Yes
`session_id_placeholder`	No
`technical_redirect_url`	No
`external_study_id_param`	No
`quota_full_redirect_url`	No
`respondent_id_placeholder`	No		{{RESPONDENT_ID}}
`external_study_id_placeholder`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Created or replaced external-panel configuration.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / organization_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), the description discloses that this is a create-or-replace write, that repeating an identical PUT preserves the entry token, and that human approval and provisioning verification are prerequisites to sharing entry_url. These are operational behaviors the structured hints do not convey.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by parameters, prerequisites, exclusions, and idempotency. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 13-parameter write tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the workflow gates, the write semantics, and the idempotency nuance. Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 8%, the description carries most of the load: it names the required redirect URLs, the respondent ID query param and placeholder, and the optional session/external-study/quota-full/technical-failure mappings. It omits the provider enum values, organization_id, and study_id semantics, which is the only real gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create or replace a customer-supplied panel bridge on an owned BYOP study') and explicitly scopes what it is not ('does not recruit respondents or launch the paid User Intuition Panel'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like launch_panel, delete_external_panel, and regenerate_external_panel_token without the agent opening a schema.

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?

It states both the when and the when-not plus the gating sequence: call get_study, verify provisioning_status=provisioned, and obtain human approval before sharing entry_url. The exclusion clause routes the agent away from panel-launching tools, and the 'repeating the same PUT' note tells the agent it is safe to re-issue.

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

All User Intuition 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.

Resources

Need Help?