create_connector_from_openapiImport a public OpenAPI JSON URL as a Klarefi verification connector. JSON specs only (convert YAML first). The connector goes live immediately — review its functions before routing live traffic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| base_url | No | ||
| openapi_url | Yes | ||
| connector_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by stating the connector 'goes live immediately' and advising review before routing traffic. This supplements the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradicting them.
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?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential constraints and caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.
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?
The description covers key operational expectations (JSON-only, immediate activation) but omits parameter semantics and return behavior. With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more detail to fully guide an agent.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or expected values for connector_key, base_url, or label. It only mentions 'public OpenAPI JSON URL', which maps loosely to openapi_url, leaving required parameters under-documented.
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?
The description clearly states 'Import a public OpenAPI JSON URL as a Klarefi verification connector', naming the specific verb, resource, and format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_connector', which likely handles manual connector creation.
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?
The description provides clear context: the tool is for importing public OpenAPI JSON URLs, and explicitly notes JSON-only specs with guidance to convert YAML first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is sufficient for basic selection.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as answer_fields vs answer_question or the various intake actions. However, get_case, get_case_package, and get_case_workspace all retrieve case-related information and could be confused, and create_connector vs create_connector_from_openapi are similar. Overall, descriptions help separate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as create_, get_, list_, save_, submit_, upload_, and wait_. The naming is highly predictable and uniform across the set.
With 20 tools, the server is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 but still reasonable for a case-management platform covering intake, review, connectors, and workflows. Each tool serves a distinct function, though some consolidation could be possible.
The tool surface covers the main intake, case review, and connector lifecycle well. Minor gaps exist: there is no explicit tool to complete or reopen a case, and workflows cannot be published or activated after saving a draft. These are workable but notable omissions.