list_integrationsList the workspace's connected channels and data sources (Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal, Shopify, Meta, Google, etc.) with their connection status, health score, and last sync time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by specifying what the tool returns (connection status, health score, last sync time) and scoping it to the workspace's connected sources, which goes beyond the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the action and resource, then provides examples and return fields. Every word adds value—no fluff or repetition.
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?
With an output schema present and no parameters, the description is nearly complete. It could clarify whether it lists only connected integrations or also disconnected ones, and doesn't mention authentication prerequisites, but these are minor gaps for a simple read-only list tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it clarifies the scope of the listing (workspace's connected channels), which indirectly indicates no filtering. The baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 the tool lists the workspace's connected channels and data sources, with specific examples and the fields returned (connection status, health score, last sync time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_stores or list_sellers by focusing on integrations.
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 context implies this tool is for viewing integration statuses, but there are no explicit guidelines on when to use it vs. alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or other tools to use instead, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.