SendIt

Connect a Connector

connect_connector

Initiate authentication flow for a connector.

For OAuth2 connectors, returns an authorization URL. For API key connectors, stores the provided key. For webhook connectors, registers the webhook URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apiKey`	No	API key (for api_key auth strategy connectors)
`botToken`	No	Bot token (for bot_token auth strategy connectors like Telegram, Discord)
`webhookUrl`	No	Webhook URL (for webhook auth strategy connectors)
`connectorId`	Yes	Connector ID to connect

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedMay 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description credibly discloses side effects for OAuth2, API key, and webhook connectors: returning an authorization URL, storing the key, and registering the webhook URL. However, the bot_token auth strategy is entirely omitted, leaving a gap in behavioral coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The subsequent lines efficiently enumerate auth-type behaviors without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a generic connector connection tool, but the description fails to mention the bot_token auth strategy included in the schema. It also does not describe return values for API key or webhook flows, nor does it provide context on idempotency or prerequisites, leaving important operational details unclear.

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%, so the schema already describes apiKey, botToken, and webhookUrl. The description adds minimal parameter-related meaning by associating auth types with behavior, but it omits the botToken parameter entirely and does not clarify which parameters are mutually exclusive.

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 clearly states the tool initiates an authentication flow for a connector, with specific behavior per auth type. It distinguishes itself from the many connect_* siblings by being generic and connector-driven, rather than platform-specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this generic connector tool versus the numerous platform-specific connect_* siblings (e.g., connect_slack, connect_telegram). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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

All SendIt tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 148 tools, there is significant overlap. For example, generate_content, publish_ai, generate_post_bundle, and request_project_content all generate content; get_analytics, get_unified_analytics, get_post_analytics, get_ad_performance, and get_unified_ad_report all fetch performance metrics; and list_inbox vs list_conversations blur comment and conversation management. Descriptions help, but boundaries between tools are often unclear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_teams, create_goal, delete_post), but there are notable deviations: create_library_item vs save_to_library, publish_content vs publish_ai, schedule_content vs schedule_content_advanced, and connect_platform vs connect_connector. Mixed prefixes like 'autopilot_', 'check_', and 'get_' are fine, but overlapping verbs and a hyphen in 'connect_linkedin-page' reduce consistency.

Tool Count1/5

148 tools is extreme for any server. Even for a broad social media management platform, this is far beyond what an agent can effectively navigate. The count is unwieldy and suggests the surface should be split into multiple focused servers (publishing, analytics, connectors, workflows, etc.).

Completeness3/5

The core social publishing workflow is well covered (create, schedule, publish, edit, delete, retry), and there are extensive features for analytics, workflows, connectors, and AI agents. However, some resources have CRUD gaps: no update/delete for brand voices, no delete_project, no update/delete for Product Hunt goals, and no explicit get_workflow. These are workable but notable omissions.

Resources

Need Help?