CRM Connector

Run an integration now

run_integration

Destructive

Integrations (between two systems): Use when a signed in CRM Connector customer wants one of their integrations to sync now, for example after fixing what made records fail. mode changes (the default) picks up what changed since the last sync; mode full reads and writes every record again, without duplicates, to repair records that did not sync correctly, and takes longer. Ask the person to confirm first. Needs the integration id from list_integrations. A sync starts at most once every 15 minutes per integration. Not for what a sync did (use get_integration_health).

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": {
      "integration_id": "<integration_id>"
    },
    "name": "run_integration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No	changes (the default) or full.	changes
`integration_id`	Yes	The id of the integration, as list_integrations returns it. Ask the person which integration they mean unless they named it in this conversation; never pick one yourself.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`message`	Yes
`outcome`	Yes
`conflicts`	No
`manageUrl`	No
`integrationId`	No
`openConflicts`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds concrete behavior they cannot convey: a hard rate limit of at most one sync per 15 minutes per integration, the fact that full mode re-reads and rewrites every record without creating duplicates, and that it takes longer. The "ask the person to confirm first" instruction is a meaningful guardrail on a destructive, non-idempotent operation, and nothing in the text conflicts with the annotations.

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?

It is front-loaded with the identity and trigger, then layers mode semantics, confirmation, prerequisite, and rate limit in a compact single paragraph with no filler sentences. The parenthetical interleaving ("mode changes (the default) picks up...") makes it slightly denser to parse than a bulleted layout would, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter, destructive, rate-limited mutation with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers trigger, exclusion, prerequisite sourcing, confirmation, rate limit, and both mode behaviors. Nothing material an agent needs to call it safely and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 would be defensible, but the description genuinely extends the schema: the mode field's own description is only "changes (the default) or full," whereas the description explains what each mode does, that full repairs previously failed records, and that it is slower. It also reinforces that integration_id comes from list_integrations and must not be guessed, matching the schema's warning.

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 and resource ("Integrations... use when a signed in CRM Connector customer wants one of their integrations to sync now") and explicitly scopes itself as the trigger action, not the reporting action. It names the sibling it is not (get_integration_health) and the sibling that supplies its key (list_integrations), so an agent can place it among the ~50 siblings without 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?

Gives an explicit trigger scenario (after fixing what made records fail), an explicit exclusion ("Not for what a sync did (use get_integration_health)"), a prerequisite (integration id from list_integrations), and a required human-confirmation step. An agent knows when to call it, when not to, and what to do first.

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

All CRM Connector 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?