ToolRouter

Connector Permissions

connector_permissions

View or set permissions for tools on a connected MCP server — which tools are allowed, rate limits, budget caps, argument restrictions. Pass the connector slug (from connector_list) and action: "list" to see current rules, or action: "set" with tool_name + rules to update one. Team scope requires admin role.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "connector_permissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	Connector slug.
`action`	No	Omit to list permissions for all tools. Pass "set" with tool_name + rules to update one.
`allowed`	No	Whether the tool is allowed (for set).
`billing`	No	Scope: "personal", "team" (auto-resolves if on one team), a team slug, or "team:<id>".
`tool_name`	No	Tool name (for set). Use "*" for all tools on this connector.
`cost_per_call`	No	Cost in millicents per call (for set).
`budget_per_day`	No	Max daily spend per user, in millicents (for set).
`nl_filter_mode`	No	How to enforce NL rules: strict (block on violation) or advisory (log only). Default: strict.
`arg_schema_rules`	No	JSON Schema validating tool arguments (for set). Example: {"properties":{"channel":{"enum":["#general"]}}}
`rate_limit_per_day`	No	Max calls per day, per user (for set).
`rate_limit_per_hour`	No	Max calls per hour, per user (for set).
`team_budget_per_day`	No	Max daily spend team-wide, in millicents (for set).
`team_rate_limit_per_day`	No	Max calls per day, team-wide (for set).
`team_rate_limit_per_hour`	No	Max calls per hour, team-wide (for set).
`arg_natural_language_rules`	No	Plain English rules for argument filtering (for set). Example: "Only allow queries for the last 90 days."

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations supplied (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description correctly frames the tool as a view/mutate hybrid and adds the admin-role authorization requirement for team scope, which annotations do not cover. It does not describe reversibility of a 'set' or what happens to overlapping rules, leaving some mutation behavior unstated.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and its scope, followed by the two-mode workflow and the one prerequisite. The em-dash enumeration adds information density with no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing content.

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?

For a 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only one required field, the description covers purpose, both operating modes, the slug source, and the authorization gate. It is slightly thin on what a 'list' returns and the side-effects of a partial 'set', which matters more here because no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 every one of the 15 parameters is already documented (including the 'for set' qualifiers and the '*' wildcard). The description's parameter content largely restates the action enum and the tool_name+rules combination; the only genuine addition is the '(from connector_list)' cross-reference, which justifies staying at the high-coverage baseline rather than above it.

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 gives a specific verb pair (view or set) and resource (permissions for tools on a connected MCP server), then enumerates exactly what those permissions cover: allowed tools, rate limits, budget caps, argument restrictions. It even names the sibling (connector_list) as the source of the slug, so an agent can place it in the toolset without opening a 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?

It clearly distinguishes the two modes and their triggers: action:"list" to see current rules, action:"set" with tool_name + rules to update one. It also states the prerequisite that team scope requires admin role and points to connector_list for the slug. No explicit 'when-not-to-use' beyond that, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All ToolRouter 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.