Skip to main content
Glama

dialogbrain

by io.github.saloprj
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

integrations_remove_endpoints

Remove endpoints (tools) from an HTTP-API integration — e.g. junk paths like static assets, /socket.io, or SPA routes that aren't real API calls. Identify the integration by integration_id or base_url, and the endpoints to drop by operation_ids (e.g. getSocketIo) and/or paths (e.g. /socket.io/). Re-registers the catalog so the removed tools disappear. Returns removed + remaining counts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsNoExact spec paths to remove (all methods), e.g. ["/socket.io/"].
base_urlNoOr the integration's base URL.
in_workspaceNoRun this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.
operation_idsNooperationIds to remove, e.g. ["getSocketIo","getPieScreensMenu"].
integration_idNoIntegration id (from integrations.list).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / in_workspace
      Added 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"
+}
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context, and it does disclose the catalog re-registration side effect and the returned removed/remaining counts. It does not state whether removal is reversible or what auth/permissions are needed, and 'the removed tools disappear' sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, leaving some ambiguity about permanence.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the junk-path rationale before the parameter mechanics and the return summary. Dense but every sentence carries information; slightly more repetition of schema examples than strictly needed.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers identification, selectors, side effect, and return shape (removed + remaining counts), which is close to complete. The remaining gap is permission/authorization requirements and reversibility.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the alternative-selection semantics the schema leaves implicit: identify the integration by integration_id OR base_url, and the endpoints by operation_ids and/or paths. That either/or combination guidance is genuinely additive beyond the per-field schema text.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Remove endpoints (tools) from an HTTP-API integration') with concrete examples of what qualifies as junk (static assets, /socket.io, SPA routes). It is easily distinguishable from integrations_add_endpoints and integrations_get_endpoints by name and scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear when-to-use scenario — cleaning up non-API paths before/after catalog registration — and states the effect ('Re-registers the catalog so the removed tools disappear'). It does not explicitly name the complementary sibling (integrations_add_endpoints) or note when not to use it, so it falls short of a full routing statement.

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

All dialogbrain 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