The Bridge

Diagnose Integration

diagnose_integration

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a project's Bridge configuration against the real app and return every concrete difference with its fix: wrong app id, a base URL pointing at another Bridge environment, a callback URL that is not a registered redirect URI, an origin that is not allowed, a missing variable the framework needs, an API key in a browser-bundled variable (VITE_*, NEXT_PUBLIC_*), and whether this environment serves its signing keys. Pass only the Bridge-related variables from the project's .env files. For any secret (BRIDGE_API_KEY or anything named *_KEY / *_SECRET) send a placeholder such as "" — never the real value; only its presence and placement are checked. bridge diagnose does the same from a shell and reads the .env files itself. get_environment_info lists the values each variable should hold; add_redirect_uri and update_app fix what it finds.

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": {
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "diagnose_integration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app`	No	Id of the Bridge app to act on for this call (see list_apps). Omit to use the current app.
`env`	Yes	The project's Bridge-related env vars, name → value, e.g. {"VITE_BRIDGE_APP_ID": "…", "VITE_BRIDGE_CALLBACK_URL": "http://localhost:5173/auth/callback"}. Secrets as "<set>", never their value.
`framework`	No	The framework the project uses. Inferred from the variable names when omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral constraints: the strict secret-handling rule (send '<set>' for BRIDGE_API_KEY or any *_KEY / *_SECRET, never the real value, since only presence and placement are checked) and the fact that it compares against the live app rather than static config. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause and keeps every sentence load-bearing, including the enumerated failure modes that justify the tool's breadth. The dense middle paragraph is long, but the detail is functional rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description still specifies the return shape ('every concrete difference with its fix'), the input contract, and the remediation path via sibling tools. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and act on the result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it scopes `env` to Bridge-related variables only and states the placeholder convention for secrets, and it explains that `framework` is inferred when omitted. The `app` parameter's 'omit to use current app' semantics live mostly in the schema, so this stops short of 5.

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 ('Check a project's Bridge configuration against the real app') and then enumerates exactly what it detects (wrong app id, base URL pointing at another environment, unregistered callback URL, disallowed origin, missing variable, secret in browser-bundled var, signing-key availability). This makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like get_environment_info or debug_auth_issue.

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?

Explicitly says what to pass ('only the Bridge-related variables from the project's .env files'), names the CLI equivalent (`bridge diagnose` reads .env itself), and routes follow-up work: get_environment_info for expected values, add_redirect_uri and update_app for fixes. When-to-use and alternatives are both covered.

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

All The Bridge 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.