Sonar Connections

Accept a hello

event_accept

Idempotent

Accepts a hello the person has received, which opens a conversation with the person who sent it. Needs a personal connector token and the hello as firstName (as an event_requests row spelled it) or requestId (as that row gave it). It accepts only hellos addressed to the caller; the server checks this and refuses with NOT_RECEIVER otherwise. A firstName that matches two waiting hellos returns AMBIGUOUS_NAME and accepts nothing. Accepting twice changes nothing. Returns ok:true when the conversation is open; event_inbox reads it and event_reply answers in it.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`firstName`	No	Optional. The first name as an event_requests row spelled it, matched against the caller's own pending hellos only. Two matches return AMBIGUOUS_NAME and nothing is accepted.
`requestId`	No	Optional. The requestId as an event_requests row gave it. When both this and firstName are sent, this one is used.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`error`	No
`chatId`	No
`message`	No
`requests`	No
`servedBy`	No
`candidates`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "ok",
+        "chatId"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "ok": {
+          "const": false
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "ok"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "found": {
+          "const": false
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "found"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "error"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "properties": {
+    "candidates": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "chatId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "requests": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "servedBy": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 11, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / firstName / description

Previous value: -"OPTIONAL. The FIRST NAME exactly as an event_requests row spelled it. Matched against the caller's OWN pending hellos only. Two matches come back AMBIGUOUS_NAME and NOTHING IS ACCEPTED, and you ask which one they mean."New value: +"Optional. The first name as an event_requests row spelled it, matched against the caller's own pending hellos only. Two matches return AMBIGUOUS_NAME and nothing is accepted."

changedInput schema / properties / requestId / description

Previous value: -"OPTIONAL. The requestId exactly as an event_requests row gave it. Never construct one. Pass this OR firstName; passing both uses this one."New value: +"Optional. The requestId as an event_requests row gave it. When both this and firstName are sent, this one is used."

AddedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: names the auth requirement, the server-side ownership check with the NOT_RECEIVER failure, the AMBIGUOUS_NAME partial-failure mode where nothing is accepted, and the ok:true success signal. The 'accepting twice changes nothing' note corroborates idempotentHint with concrete meaning rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and effect, then prerequisites, then failure modes, then the return value and next steps. Five dense sentences with no filler; every clause is load-bearing.

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?

Annotations cover safety and idempotency, the schema covers parameters and there is an output schema, yet the description still supplies the missing operational context: auth token, authorization refusal, ambiguity handling, and idempotent re-acceptance. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds the joint semantics the per-property schema cannot: the two parameters are alternatives, both sourced from an event_requests row. It largely restates the matching scope and precedence rules already in the schema, so it is only modestly above 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 ('accepts a hello the person has received') plus the effect ('opens a conversation with the person who sent it'). This clearly distinguishes it from event_say_hello, event_send_request and event_requests without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the prerequisites (personal connector token, hello identified by firstName or requestId drawn from an event_requests row), an explicit exclusion ('only hellos addressed to the caller'), and the follow-on tools (event_inbox to read, event_reply to answer). An agent knows exactly when this tool applies and when the server will refuse.

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

All Sonar Connections tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?