Skip to main content
Glama

Get a sign-in link for a tool

connect_tool
Read-only

Connect Linear, Jira or PostHog to an app: returns the sign-in link to give the user. Only they can sign in; it brings them back to the app's Rules tab.

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": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>",
      "tool": "<tool>"
    },
    "name": "connect_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamNoAct in another of your teams, by its name or id (whoami lists them). Omitted: the key's own team
toolYesWhat to connect to this app
app_idYesApp id from list_apps or create_app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declare the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context: it returns a link rather than performing the connection, the user must sign in themselves, and the flow returns them to the app's Rules tab. It does not mention link expiry or persistence.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and the providers, followed by the key constraint (only the user can sign in). No filler.

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?

Complete for a simple 3-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. The remaining gap is the relationship to connect_github and what the returned link looks like in practice.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by tying the tool/app pair to a human hand-off flow, reinforcing that 'tool' selects which provider signs in, though it doesn't add syntax detail for team or app_id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a sign-in link to connect Linear, Jira or PostHog to an app. It is distinguishable from connect_github and create_app, though it does not explicitly name those siblings or clarify the relationship between connect_tool and the per-provider connect tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage (connect a third-party tool to an app, hand the link to the user), but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not mention connect_github as the alternative for GitHub, which is a real ambiguity given the sibling list.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.