Help by DeltaBreen

test_integration_address

Idempotent

Test a test domain's address as test_integration tests the integration's URL: Help sends it a challenge, which it must answer signed with that address's own secret. Its tickets are asked nothing until it passes. handshake is "proved" when it worked; handshake_error says why not. 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>",
      "address_id": "<address_id>"
    },
    "name": "test_integration_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address_id`	Yes	The address's id (a uuid), from list_integration_addresses.
`integration_id`	Yes	The integration's id (a uuid), from list_integrations.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real behavior beyond them: an outbound challenge signed with the address's own secret, the gating of ticket traffic on success, and an owner-only authorization requirement. It also names the response fields handshake and handshake_error, filling the gap left by the absent output schema.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the core action first and outcome fields last; every sentence carries information. The opening clause ('Test a test domain's address as test_integration tests the integration's URL') is slightly convoluted but functional.

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 two-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirement, side effect (challenge-response, withheld tickets) and return semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters document their uuid format and where to source them (list_integration_addresses, list_integrations). The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (test an integration address) and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling test_integration by naming it and contrasting the target (address vs integration URL). An agent can pick between the two without opening either 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 the selection context clear by analogy to test_integration and adds the "Owner only" precondition plus the consequence that tickets are not requested until the handshake passes. There is no explicit when-not clause, but the framing leaves little ambiguity about when to call it.

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?