Dynamik Public Data

Describe Dynamik

describe_dynamik

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover Dynamik capabilities and get a clickable connection handoff. If the requested task needs account tools, show the returned connection_handoff to the user, help them authenticate in their agent host, then refresh tools and continue the task.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`service`	Yes
`connection`	Yes
`public_access`	Yes
`connection_handoff`	Yes
`connected_capabilities`	Yes
`suggested_user_message`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 3, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / connection_handoff

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "agent_instructions": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "required_scopes": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "title",
+    "required_scopes",
+    "message",
+    "agent_instructions"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "service",
-  "public_access",
-  "connection",
-  "connected_capabilities",
-  "suggested_user_message"
-]New value: +[
+  "service",
+  "public_access",
+  "connection",
+  "connected_capabilities",
+  "suggested_user_message",
+  "connection_handoff"
+]

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: it returns a connection_handoff, requires the user to authenticate in their agent host, and tells the agent to refresh tools afterward. This auth-requirement disclosure is exactly the kind of trait annotations don't cover.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the workflow instruction. The second sentence packs multiple steps but each is actionable and earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description need not document return values, and it appropriately explains how to use the returned handoff instead. What an agent needs to call and follow up correctly is covered.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 ('Discover Dynamik capabilities') and names a concrete artifact produced ('clickable connection handoff'). It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like describe_dataset or search_datasets, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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?

The conditional 'If the requested task needs account tools...' implies when this tool matters, but it is framed as post-call workflow rather than as guidance for choosing this tool over its siblings. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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

All Dynamik Public Data 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?