Skip to main content
Glama

List integrations

list_integrations
Read-onlyIdempotent

All supported email-service integrations with connected flags and connection counts (GET /v1/integrations). Free.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_integrations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cursorNoOpaque `pagination.next_cursor` from the previous page.
per_pageNoPage size, 1–100.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: the response fields (connected flags, connection counts), and that the call is free, which matters for cost-sensitive agents.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its key result fields, followed by endpoint and cost. No filler, every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description tells an agent what comes back (connected flags, connection counts), the endpoint, and cost. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or contrasts with get_integration, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for cursor and per_page, so the schema does the parameter heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the pagination parameters or their interaction, which is acceptable at baseline 3 but leaves no extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource ('All supported email-service integrations') and what the result carries (connected flags and connection counts), plus the underlying endpoint GET /v1/integrations. It implies it differs from get_integration by returning the full set, but never explicitly contrasts with that sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the word 'All' suggests this is the enumeration call when you need the full inventory rather than a single integration via get_integration. It never states when to prefer this over get_integration or how to handle pagination across pages.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources