Get the full input schema(s) for external tool slugs returned by integrations_search_tools, before executing them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_names | Yes | ext<id>_<name> slugs from integrations_search_tools | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the sequencing constraint (call before execution) which is useful, but it never explains the surprising idempotentHint=false on what looks like a pure lookup, nor what the returned schema payload looks like.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and resource before the workflow hint. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential call context. It could go slightly further on the plural 'schema(s)' return shape and the non-idempotency, but nothing blocks correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (tool_names and in_workspace) are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the slug concept but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Get), resource (full input schema(s)), and scope (external tool slugs returned by integrations_search_tools). An agent can immediately distinguish this from integrations_search_tools (which finds slugs) and integrations_execute_tool (which runs them).
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 phrase 'before executing them' establishes the workflow position relative to integrations_execute_tool, and it names integrations_search_tools as the source of valid slugs. It stops short of explicitly naming integrations_execute_tool as the alternative or stating when-not-to-use, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.
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.