Conecto

Open a whistleblowing channel

whistleblowing_create_channel

The channel every employer with 50 or more staff must run (EU Directive 2019/1937): a page where anyone reports a concern, anonymously if they like, and gets a case number and code to follow up. Only the named handlers read reports; you see their case numbers, dates and deadlines only. The handlers get an email now and whenever a report arrives. Only the owner can change the handlers later. $20.00 for the first month, then $20 a month from the balance. Costs $20.00 per 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>",
      "handlers": "<handlers>"
    },
    "name": "whistleblowing_create_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`intro`	No	Markdown above the form: what can be reported and how it is handled.
`handlers`	Yes	The people who read and answer reports: impartial, named, 1 to 10.
`categories`	No
`external_info`	No	Where else people may report: the competent authority.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the visibility model (handlers read reports, owner sees only case numbers/dates/deadlines), the side effect of emailing handlers immediately and on every new report, the owner-only constraint on handler changes, and the full billing behavior including 'nothing if it fails'. These are the exact facts an agent needs before committing a paying, notification-firing, permission-binding call.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the compliance purpose, then behavior, then cost, so the most decision-relevant fact arrives first. Slightly padded by restating the price twice ('$20.00 for the first month, then $20 a month' / 'Costs $20.00 per call'), which costs a point.

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?

A mutating, billed, non-idempotent tool with no output schema is well served by the permission, notification and pricing disclosures. The one gap is that it never says what the caller gets back on success (channel id, URL or slug), which matters for a create tool with no 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?

Schema description coverage is 60%, with 'name' and 'categories' undescribed in the schema; the description doesn't fill those gaps either, though it does implicitly clarify the role of handlers (the people who read reports) consistent with the schema's own description. Baseline 3 given partial schema coverage.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource framed by its legal driver ('The channel every employer with 50 or more staff must run'), making it unmistakably the creation tool versus whistleblowing_list_reports, whistleblowing_stats and whistleblowing_update_channel. An agent knows exactly what artifact this produces.

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 statutory trigger (50+ staff, EU Directive 2019/1937) gives clear when-to-use context, and 'Only the owner can change the handlers later' signals that this is a one-time setup step rather than a repeated edit. No explicit pointer to update_channel as the alternative for editing, which holds it back from a 5.

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?