List the account's stored credential connections (token vault). Reference a ready connection by its ID in execute's connection_id instead of passing raw headers — the credential is injected at execution time and never passes through your context. Secrets are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses that secrets are never returned and that credentials are injected at execution time, providing important security context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters or output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and security. Could mention return type implicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is complete. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but no parameter details are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists credential connections (token vault) and provides context for their usage. It could explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to retrieve connection IDs for use with execute, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution. No overlapping functionality; descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution). Naming is uniform and predictable.
Six tools cover the core functionality of an execution management server: initiating, checking, listing, replaying executions, plus managing connections and usage. This is well-scoped, not too few nor too many.
The tool set provides a complete lifecycle for asynchronous API execution: create (execute), check status (get_execution), list (list_executions), replay (replay_execution), manage credentials (list_connections), and monitor usage (get_usage). No obvious gaps for the stated domain.