Skip to main content
Glama

klanex-mcp

by com.klanexai.api

execute

Submit an HTTP call to a third-party API for reliable asynchronous execution. klanex validates the payload (optionally against payload_schema), stores credentials encrypted, executes with automatic retries/backoff/circuit breakers, and keeps an audit trail — you submit once and never retry transient failures yourself.

Call this instead of making a direct HTTP request whenever the call has side effects (payments, messages, tickets, writes) or the target may be flaky. Prefer connection_id over headers for credentials. Always set idempotency_key for side-effecting calls so resubmitting can never double-execute. Set wait_seconds to block for the result; otherwise poll get_execution with the returned execution_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesabsolute http(s) URL of the target endpoint
methodNoHTTP method: GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, or DELETE (default POST)
headersNorequest headers, typically third-party credentials; encrypted at rest and never readable back. Prefer connection_id so secrets never pass through your context
payloadNoJSON body to send to the target
seal_urlNoset true when the URL itself is a secret (webhook URL, presigned URL); it is encrypted and reads back redacted
timeout_msNoper-attempt timeout in milliseconds (default 30000)
max_attemptsNomaximum delivery attempts, 1-10 (default 5)
wait_secondsNoblock up to this many seconds (max 55) for a terminal result instead of returning immediately after queueing
connection_idNoID of a stored credential connection (con_...) to authenticate the call; see list_connections
payload_schemaNoJSON Schema to validate payload against before anything executes; mismatches are rejected synchronously with a correction hint
idempotency_keyNostable key (max 255 chars) making this submit safe to retry; the same key returns the original execution instead of creating a new one. Always set this for side-effecting calls
requires_approvalNopause for a human approve/reject decision before anything executes; use for destructive or high-stakes actions

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency responsibility. It discloses validation, encrypted credential storage, automatic retries/backoff/circuit breakers, audit trail, idempotent resubmission, blocking wait behavior, and approval gating—far beyond the schema's field names.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by when-to-use guidance and parameter-specific notes. Three compact paragraphs contain no filler; every sentence carries operational value.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and side-effecting behavior, the description explains the full lifecycle: submit, receive execution_id, optionally wait or poll get_execution. It covers validation, retries, credential handling, idempotency, approval, and audit trail, making it complete enough for safe invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema already has 100% parameter coverage, the description adds strategic usage meaning: prefer connection_id over headers for credentials, set idempotency_key for side effects to prevent double execution, and use wait_seconds to block or poll get_execution. This materially improves the agent's ability to choose parameter values.

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?

First sentence states the specific action: submitting an HTTP call to a third-party API with reliable asynchronous execution. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as the execution entry point, contrasted with get_execution and replay_execution.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool instead of a direct HTTP request: when the call has side effects or the target may be flaky. It also gives concrete alternatives and directives: prefer connection_id over headers, always set idempotency_key for side-effecting calls, and poll get_execution when not using wait_seconds.

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

All klanex-mcp toolsInspect
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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: execute creates executions, get_execution reads one, list_executions lists them, replay_execution re-runs them, get_usage reports account usage, and list_connections manages credentials. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution. The only tool without a noun is 'execute', but it is the primary verb and fits the imperative style consistently.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for an HTTP execution management server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the lifecycle (create, read, list, replay, usage, credentials) without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The core execution workflow is well covered: submit, fetch, list, replay, plus account usage and credential listing. A minor gap is the absence of explicit tools for approval actions (given the PENDING_APPROVAL status) or connection management beyond listing, but these are arguably external concerns.

Resources