mcp-server

configure_order_connection

Idempotent

Set a standalone order connection's Orders Config, sync level and on/off state. order_config is a {code: value} map using codes from get_order_connection.orderConfigFields; order_sync_level is 'orders_and_stock' or 'stock_only'; order_status 'active' enables order syncing for this connection, 'disabled' turns it off. Returns {connectionId, action:'configure', status, orderStatus, addonCode, upsellUrl, message}: 'updated' on success; 'rejected' (HTTP 400) if you tried to set an unknown, paid-locked or unavailable field (NOTHING is saved — message lists them, upsellUrl for a paid field); or 'prerequisite_not_met' (HTTP 409) if you try to enable a connection that has not finished authentication yet (complete it in the Koongo UI and confirm with test_order_connection first). Only order settings are changed here — marketplace credentials are NEVER set via MCP. Provided order_config keys are merged (other settings are left untouched). connection_id is from get_order_overview. project_id is OPTIONAL (project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	No
`order_config`	No	Map of Orders Config values, {code: value}, using codes from get_order_connection.orderConfigFields.
`order_status`	No	'active' enables order syncing for this connection, 'disabled' turns it off.
`connection_id`	Yes	connectionId of the order connection (from get_order_overview).
`order_sync_level`	No	Order sync level: 'orders_and_stock' or 'stock_only'.

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses important behavioral traits: exact return shape, success/error statuses ('updated', 'rejected' with HTTP 400, 'prerequisite_not_met' with HTTP 409), the fact that rejected writes save NOTHING, merging behavior for order_config keys, and the guarantee that credentials are never changed. This significantly exceeds what annotations provide.

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 long but every sentence carries essential information: the action, parameter semantics, error behavior, prerequisite flow, merge semantics, and credential boundaries. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically with no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers return values and error conditions. It also covers prerequisites, how to obtain required IDs, what happens on partial failure, and where to route for missing project_id. There are no obvious gaps an agent would need filled to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already has 80% description coverage, and the tool description adds further meaning: it explains that order_config uses codes from get_order_connection.orderConfigFields, that order_sync_level is restricted to two values, that order_status toggles syncing on/off, and that order_config keys are merged rather than replaced. It also clarifies the source of connection_id and the optional/required nature of project_id.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Set a standalone order connection's Orders Config, sync level and on/off state') with a clear resource and scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that marketplace credentials are NEVER set via MCP, so an agent can tell it apart from configure_marketplace_step or enable_marketplace_order_sync.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it is for order settings only, not marketplace credentials; it can only enable connections after authentication is completed via the Koongo UI and test_order_connection; and it directs the agent to list_projects when project_id is required. This is strong routing relative to alternatives.

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

All mcp-server tools Inspect

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized around distinct resources (ads, marketplaces, feeds, orders, rules, sources) with clear action verbs, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate near-pairs like get_feed_status vs ad_status or set_feed_filter vs set_feed_attribute_filter. A few similarly named status/action pairs (e.g. ad_status vs get_ad, run_ad_item_action vs run_ad_operation) require careful reading, but overall the purposes are separable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, set_*, run_*, test_*). Minor deviations like ad_status and marketplace_status (noun-based status tools) and koongo_knowledge break the pattern slightly, but the convention is clearly recognizable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

At 105 tools, the surface is extreme and far beyond the 50+ threshold, even for a complex e-commerce integration domain. Much of the bloat comes from systematic triplication across ads, marketplaces, and feeds (e.g. three nearly identical map_*_attribute tools, three list_*_items, three get_*_report) that a generic resource parameter could have consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle of feeds, ads, marketplaces, order connections, rules, and imports, including create/read/update/delete, status monitoring, item-level actions, validation, repair, and restore. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete for standalone order connections and limited update capabilities for some entities, but these are workable and do not create dead ends for the core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?