Conecto

Send a saved dashboard

view_send_link

Send each person their own one-time link to a saved view as it is now: by email in the business's name, and to saved notify channels. Email follows the rules of every email from the account (new addresses are capped a day). A schedule repeating this call every Monday is the weekly dashboard. $0.02 per email and $0.005 per channel, for the ones that went out. Costs $0.02 per email, $0.005 per channel (at most $0.225 a call); nothing if it fails.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "view_send_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Email addresses; each gets its own link.
`name`	Yes	The saved view's name, like weekly-sales.
`message`	No	A line above the link.
`channels`	No	Saved notify channels (notify_list_channels); each gets its own link.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds substantive behavior: per-recipient one-time links, sending in the business's name, daily caps on new addresses, and per-call cost ceilings that are waived on failure. These are genuinely useful for deciding whether to call it, though the cost figures are stated twice, diluting the value slightly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening is well front-loaded, but the final sentence repeats the exact pricing ('$0.02 per email, $0.005 per channel') already given one sentence earlier, wasting space on a tool where budget-consciousness matters. Two of four sentences are essentially duplicate cost statements.

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 mutation/send tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, caps, delivery channels, and failure behavior — enough to call it responsibly. The main missing piece is what the call returns (e.g., confirmation or generated links), which an agent might reasonably want to know even without a formal output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that both `to` and `channels` produce one link per recipient ('each gets its own link' is in the schema too), but it adds nothing for `name` or `message` that the schema does not already document.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'send each person their own one-time link to a saved view as it is now' — and names the delivery mechanisms (email, notify channels). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling link-retrieval tools like view_link or account_dashboard_link, which presumably return a link rather than dispatching it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied ('A schedule repeating this call every Monday is the weekly dashboard') and the description notes the email-cap rule, but it never states when to choose this over view_link, view_show, or the various *_dashboard_link siblings. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, leaving routing to inference.

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

All Conecto 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?