Help by DeltaBreen

set_side_panel

Idempotent

Choose the fields the team sees beside a ticket for an integration. This replaces the side panel. Only where each value is gets saved, never a value. Which fields an AI may see stays as a person set it. Owner only.

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": {
      "integration_id": "<integration_id>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "set_side_panel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	Yes	The fields the team sees beside a ticket, in order, up to 30. This replaces the side panel. Which fields an AI may see is kept as it was, and is off for a new field: only a person can switch that on.
`integration_id`	Yes	The integration's id (a uuid), from list_integrations.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 27, 2026
- changedInput schema / $defs / PanelField / properties / columns / type
```
Previous value: -[
-  "array",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"array"
```
- changedInput schema / $defs / PanelField / properties / hide_empty / type
```
Previous value: -[
-  "boolean",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"boolean"
```
- changedInput schema / $defs / PanelField / properties / type / type
```
Previous value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"string"
```
First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable non-obvious behavior: the call fully replaces the existing panel, it stores only pointers (not values), and it never changes AI-visibility, which stays human-set and off by default for new fields. That is real context beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the whole text is five short sentences with no filler. It loses a point because 'Only where each value is gets saved, never a value' is grammatically broken and takes a reread to parse, slightly undercutting the otherwise tight phrasing.

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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, annotations present, and no output schema, the essentials are covered: replacement semantics, owner-only access, pointer-not-value storage, and untouched AI visibility. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though a pointer to get_integration_sample_shape as the source of pointers would have closed the loop fully.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters and nested PanelField/Column properties are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces pointer-only semantics ('Only where each value is gets saved, never a value') but adds little beyond what the schema's pointer and fields descriptions already state. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 verb and resource: 'Choose the fields the team sees beside a ticket for an integration,' later confirmed as 'This replaces the side panel.' An agent can tell this configures an integration's ticket side-panel layout, distinct from the many integration siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

'This replaces the side panel' implies when to use it (whole-panel replacement rather than incremental edit), and 'Owner only' flags a permission precondition. However, no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives are given, and the agent must infer usage from the sibling list itself.

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

All Help by DeltaBreen 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?