Well

List retargetable connectors

well_list_retargetable_connectors

Read-only

Read the connectors on this workspace's lineage parent (its membership workspace) that could follow it here, WITHOUT showing the user anything: each candidate's connector, how strongly it was proved to belong to this company, and how much transaction history is behind it. This draws nothing on the user's screen and asks for no confirmation.

Use it ONLY for a silent CHECK the model acts on itself: the close-books bank step deciding whether a candidate exists on the parent before it offers the retarget card, a step that needs the candidate count. An empty list is the normal answer for a workspace connected correctly the first time. Read the count and act in the same turn — there is no card and no click to wait on.

⚠️ To have the USER bring a connector across, call well_show_retargetable_connectors INSTEAD — that one draws the card the user confirms. This tool cannot draw one, so a retarget step run here leaves the user with nothing to act on.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workspace_id`	No	Target workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several: this read reports one workspace's own figures and will not choose which.
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`next_step`	No	What to do with the card this result renders. Added by the dispatcher when the card asks for a click.
`candidates`	No
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
`resolved_workspace`	No	The workspace that answered, when the caller named none and the token authorizes several.
`conversation_id_note`	No	Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
`conversation_id_source`	No	Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id_note

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id_source

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.",
+  "enum": [
+    "host_meta",
+    "argument",
+    "minted"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it draws nothing on the screen, asks for no confirmation, and is intended as a silent check that returns a count. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is longer than average but is well structured: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clear usage rule and a distinct warning block with an emoji. Every sentence adds value, and the contrast with the sibling tool is prominent. It could be tightened slightly, but it is not bloated.

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?

Given the tool's specific use case (silent check, no UI, return count), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns (candidates, proof strength, history), when an empty list is normal, and the instruction to act in the same turn. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so both workspace_id and conversation_id are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions reading the count, which is output behavior. Thus the baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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: 'Read the connectors on this workspace's lineage parent... that could follow it here' and explicitly contrasts with the sibling well_show_retargetable_connectors, which draws a card. It clearly distinguishes the read-only, silent list operation from the user-facing show variant, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it ONLY for a silent CHECK the model acts on itself' and names the exact scenario (close-books bank step). It also states when not to use it, pointing to well_show_retargetable_connectors as the alternative for user-facing actions, and notes that an empty list is normal. This is textbook usage guidance.

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

All Well 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?