Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

syntropy-mcp

by io.github.macek166
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

syntropy_register_connector

Register a Custom Epistemic Connector (live REST API webhook, SQL/JSON table snapshot, data-retrieval sub-agent endpoint, or MCP tool bridge) on a Small World (@domain:tag).

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": {
      "world_id_or_handle": "<world_id_or_handle>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "syntropy_register_connector"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesHuman-readable connector name (e.g. 'Acme ERP SLA API').
methodNoHTTP method ('POST' or 'GET').POST
headersNoOptional HTTP headers (e.g. {'Authorization': 'Bearer ...'}).
static_rowsNoOptional inline SQL/JSON table rows when connector_type is 'sql_table_snapshot'.
endpoint_urlNoPublic HTTPS endpoint URL for live retrieval.
row_templateNoOptional Python format string to render dict rows into declarative axioms.
connector_typeNoConnector type: 'rest_webhook', 'sql_table_snapshot', 'agent_endpoint', or 'mcp_tool'.rest_webhook
world_id_or_handleYesTarget Small World handle (e.g. '@law:contract-act') or UUID.
response_axioms_pathNoOptional dot-path into the JSON response (e.g. 'data.rows').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: it does not state that registering is a persistent mutation, whether re-registering the same name overwrites, whether the endpoint is probed or fetched immediately, what permissions are required, or what identifier is returned. Recording 'Sub-agent endpoint' and 'MCP tool bridge' hints at capability but not at side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by the type enumeration and the target handle. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical list is long enough that it competes with the core statement.

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?

This is a nine-parameter mutating tool with a nested object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema; the description should explain what registering yields and how conditional parameters interact. Instead it stops at describing the resource type, leaving the agent guessing about lifecycle and return behavior.

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 nine parameters is already documented in the schema, including defaults and the connector_type enumeration. The parenthetical list of connector types merely restates those enum values, adding no format, coupling, or conditional-requirement information (for example, that endpoint_url only matters for live types).

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Register') and a specific resource ('Custom Epistemic Connector') and enumerates the four supported connector flavors, which maps cleanly onto the connector_type values. It is distinguishable from the query/list siblings by the act of creating a connector rather than reading one, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over syntropy_list_connectors or syntropy_query_connector, no preconditions (auth credentials for the endpoint, whether the world must already exist), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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

All syntropy-mcp toolsInspect
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