PingRelay MCP Server

integration_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one integration configuration by external GUID in the authenticated organization, including destination and associated monitor/heartbeat names. Deleted and disabled integrations remain retrievable; inspect IsDeleted and IsDisabled before interpreting a route as active.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "integrationExternalId": "<integrationExternalId>"
    },
    "name": "integration_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`integrationExternalId`	Yes	External integration GUID returned as Id by IntegrationList or ExternalId by notification-routing tools.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 8, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / integrationExternalId / description

Added value: +"External integration GUID returned as Id by IntegrationList or ExternalId by notification-routing tools."

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: soft-deleted and disabled integrations remain retrievable, and the response flags IsDeleted/IsDisabled which must be checked before treating the route as live. That is exactly the kind of caveat an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and lookup key, with the deleted/disabled caveat as a natural second beat. No filler, no restatement of the name or annotations.

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?

For a one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers scope, return contents, and the disabled/deleted semantic trap. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the result correctly appears to be missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the GUID's provenance (Id from IntegrationList, ExternalId from notification-routing tools). The description still adds scoping meaning — the GUID is resolved within the authenticated organization — which constrains interpretation of cross-org IDs. Minor value over a fully documented schema, so just above the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one integration configuration'), the exact lookup key ('by external GUID'), the tenant scope ('in the authenticated organization'), and the payload contents ('destination and associated monitor/heartbeat names'). The singular 'one ... by external GUID' framing distinguishes it from integration_list without needing the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Makes clear this is the single-record lookup keyed by GUID, and implicitly routes ID discovery elsewhere (the schema explicitly points to IntegrationList / notification-routing tools). It also gives a conditional use instruction: inspect IsDeleted and IsDisabled before interpreting a route as active. It stops short of an explicit 'use integration_list when you don't have a GUID' statement.

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

All PingRelay MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?