get_integration_status| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| on_behalf_of | No | An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / on_behalf_ofAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, but the description adds substantial behavior: the needs_reconnect flag on linkedin/google_calendar/fathom, the different meaning of 'email' per integration, the fact that a missing key means 'not checked' rather than disconnected, and the dual slack flags. This is exactly the context an agent cannot get from the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded summary followed by a returns block, and every sentence carries real information (edge-case flags, email semantics, missing-key semantics). It is long but dense rather than padded; minor verbosity keeps it from a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the full burden of documenting the return shape, including per-integration exceptions and the missing-key caveat. Nothing needed to interpret the result is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single on_behalf_of parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add syntax or behavioral detail about that parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource — reports which integrations the account has connected — and defines the keying convention (same integration_id passed to get_tool_connect_url). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the connect-link sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives explicit trigger conditions: call before telling a user an integration is unavailable, and before minting a connect link for one they claim is already connected. It also names the related tool by id, so routing is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.