List the account's stored credential connections (token vault). Reference a ready connection by its ID in execute's connection_id instead of passing raw headers — the credential is injected at execution time and never passes through your context. Secrets are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description discloses critical behavioral traits: secrets never returned and credential injection at execution time. This reassures about security and context handling, going beyond a simple list operation.
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?
Two well-structured sentences. First states purpose, second explains usage and a security note. Zero redundancy, efficiently front-loaded.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, description adequately covers purpose, output nature (list of connections with IDs), and key behavioral guarantees. No missing information needed for a simple listing tool.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to add beyond the schema. Baseline of 4 applies; no param info needed in description.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'stored credential connections (token vault)', clearly distinguishing from sibling execution-related tools. Parenthetical 'token vault' adds clarity about the nature of connections.
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?
Provides clear context on how to use the output: reference a connection ID in execute's connection_id instead of raw headers. Implies when to use (to obtain IDs for `execute`) but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with other siblings.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.