Skip to main content
Glama

Connections

by icu.connections
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Copy a connected service into another of the member's workspaces

connections_copy_connection
Destructive

Copy one connected service (Cloudflare, GitHub, AWS, ...) from one of the member's workspaces into another, so the receiving workspace uses the same account without a new sign-in. The copy SHARES the source's credential - nothing secret is duplicated, read into this conversation or returned. Allowed only while the member's cross-workspace access is ON (connections_cross_workspace_access) and BOTH workspaces are solely theirs; otherwise the reply is cross_workspace_refused with a reason and the settings link - say that, do not retry, and hand them the copy_url from connections_explore_connectors instead. Name the source EXACTLY ONE way: connectionId (the source row's id, from GET /v1/connected-services in the source workspace), or service (the connector slug, e.g. "ssh") + instance (that connection's instance name) - naming both forms together returns conflicting_source, and naming neither returns missing_source. fromProject defaults to whichever of the member's own workspaces holds that connection, the one this assistant is bound to included; pass it when service + instance matches in more than one workspace (the reply is ambiguous_source, listing each candidate's project_id) or to search only one. A not_found names the workspace searched - pass fromProject, or switch to service + instance, rather than guessing. Pass overwrite with a connection id in the TARGET workspace to replace a dead or duplicate connection in one act: the copy lands first, the old row is disconnected, and the copy takes its name. Returns {connectionId, projectId, instanceName, sharesCredential}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceNoWith `instance`, instead of connectionId: the connector slug of the connection to copy (e.g. "ssh").
instanceNoWith `service`, instead of connectionId: that connection's instance name in the source workspace.
overwriteNoOptional: a connection id IN THE RECEIVING WORKSPACE to replace; the copy takes its name.
toProjectYesThe receiving workspace's project id, ref or company id.
fromProjectNoThe source workspace's project id, ref or company id. Omit to use whichever of the member's own workspaces holds the connection.
connectionIdNoThe SOURCE connection's id (a UUID from /v1/connected-services). Or omit it and pass service + instance instead - exactly one of the two forms.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / connectionId / description
      Previous value: -"The SOURCE connection's id (a UUID from /v1/connected-services)."New value: +"The SOURCE connection's id (a UUID from /v1/connected-services). Or omit it and pass service + instance instead - exactly one of the two forms."
    • changedInput schema / properties / fromProject / description
      Previous value: -"The source workspace's project id, ref or company id. Omit for the workspace this connection is bound to."New value: +"The source workspace's project id, ref or company id. Omit to use whichever of the member's own workspaces holds the connection."
    • addedInput schema / properties / instance
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "With `service`, instead of connectionId: that connection's instance name in the source workspace.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / service
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "With `instance`, instead of connectionId: the connector slug of the connection to copy (e.g. \"ssh\").",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "connectionId",
-  "toProject"
-]New value: +[
+  "toProject"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate mutation and destructiveness, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the copy shares the source's credential without duplicating, reading, or returning secrets; overwrite lands the copy first, disconnects the old row, and takes its name; the response shape is listed. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is long but information-dense, and every clause earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and credential-sharing behavior before covering error conditions, parameter alternatives, overwrite semantics, and return values. Nothing is redundant for a six-parameter tool with these edge cases.

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?

The description fully covers permission prerequisites, error responses, parameter relationships, fallback actions, overwrite behavior, and return fields. There is no output schema, but the description states the returned object. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly without guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema already documents all six parameters, the description adds substantial cross-parameter semantics: exactly one of connectionId or service+instance must be provided, with error names for both-or-neither; fromProject has a default and a disambiguation purpose; overwrite is tied to the target workspace. This goes far beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: copy one connected service from one of the member's workspaces into another. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by naming connections_explore_connectors as the fallback for cross-workspace-refused cases and by focusing narrowly on copying, not listing, creating, or managing connections.

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?

It explicitly states when the tool is allowed (cross-workspace access ON, both workspaces solely the member's) and when it is not, including the exact instruction not to retry and to hand over the copy_url from connections_explore_connectors instead. It also gives precise guidance on choosing connectionId vs service+instance and when to pass fromProject.

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

All Connections toolsInspect
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