clariBI.com

request_oauth_integration_url

Initiate an OAuth handoff to a vendor integration (Google Ads, GA4, Search Console, Sheets, Drive, BigQuery, Meta Ads, Jira, Confluence). Returns an authorization URL the user opens in a browser. After the user clicks Allow, the connection is created and you can poll check_integration_status(handoff_id) to find out when the data is ready.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`provider`	Yes	OAuth provider to authorize. Currently supports the native-OAuth catalog: Google (Ads, Analytics 4, Search Console, Sheets, Drive, BigQuery), Meta Ads, and Atlassian Jira / Confluence.
`integration_type`	No	Per-provider sub-type. Google accepts google_ads, gsheets, ga4, gsc, gdrive, bigquery, gcs, gcp, basic. Meta accepts ads or basic. Jira and Confluence accept basic. Defaults to basic.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`provider`	Yes
`next_step`	Yes	Tool to call next, normally "check_integration_status".
`handoff_id`	Yes
`authorize_url`	Yes	Open in a browser to grant consent.
`integration_type`	Yes
`expires_in_seconds`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns a user-facing authorization URL, requires user interaction (clicking Allow), asynchronously creates the connection, and provides a handoff_id used for polling. This is meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds the workflow in two sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the OAuth handoff complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies what the tool returns, what the user must do, and how to follow up. It also references the relevant sibling tool for status checking.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents. The list of integrations is helpful but redundant with the schema's provider enum description. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Initiate an OAuth handoff') and clearly identifies the resource (vendor integrations) with concrete examples. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling follow-up tool by mentioning check_integration_status for polling.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool and outlines the expected workflow: call to get an authorization URL, have the user open it, then poll check_integration_status. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All clariBI.com 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are generally distinct by resource and action, but a few status polling tools (check_integration_status, get_analysis_status) could be confused without careful reading; descriptions clarify the difference.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, but there is minor variation (e.g., 'check' vs 'get' for status, and some compound nouns like 'request_oauth_integration_url').

Tool Count4/5

26 tools is slightly above the typical range but appropriate for a comprehensive BI platform covering data ingestion, analysis, forecasting, reports, dashboards, and account management; each tool has a clear purpose.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is heavily read-oriented, lacking update and delete operations for most resources (data sources, dashboards, reports, forecasts). This leaves significant lifecycle management gaps for an agent.

Resources

Need Help?