Admin Substitute

integrations.list_connections

Read-only

List all active integration connections for the company. Shows provider name, status, last sync time, and supported entity types. Use this to discover what external systems are connected before pushing/pulling data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No	Filter by connection status. Omit to return all.
`category`	No	Filter by provider category (e.g., accounting, communication, project_management). Omit to return all.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No	Total connections returned
`connections`	No	List of active connections

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. Description adds output fields but says 'active' connections first, while schema allows filtering by other statuses. This could mislead about default behavior, lowering transparency slightly.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words. Efficient and immediately informative.

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?

With only two optional parameters well-documented in schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context. Slight issue with 'active' vs default unfiltered behavior, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. Description does not add additional meaning beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'List all active integration connections' with explicit verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by noting use case for discovering connections before push/pull, differentiating from push, sync, and status tools.

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'Use this to discover what external systems are connected before pushing/pulling data.' Implicitly tells when to use, though does not mention alternatives like integrations.connection_status.

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

All Admin Substitute 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct resource+action naming (e.g., leads.create, jobs.list), but some overlap exists in analytics tools (dashboard, detailed, financials) and workflow automations (process_lead vs google_ads_pipeline). Descriptions clarify purposes, so slight confusion is possible but limited.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern (e.g., leads.create, billing.status). No mixing of camelCase or snake_case. Even complex names like lifecycle.assess or scaling.readiness_score adhere to the convention.

Tool Count1/5

95 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). While the server aims to cover an entire business management platform, this volume is overwhelming for an agent, making selection and memory difficult.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering formation, hiring, compliance, funding, leads, quotes, jobs, invoicing, payments, marketing, analytics, integrations, webhooks, workflows, and more. Almost no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of running a trade business.

Resources

Need Help?