Create and save one connector configuration for later data onboarding, health checks, and schema browsing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| config | No | ||
| visibility | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| connector_type | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Create and save' indicating a mutation, but provides no details about permissions, idempotency, side effects, or what happens on duplicates. With no annotations, the description should offer more behavioral 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?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, conveying the core purpose efficiently. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key usage details without losing conciseness.
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 the 5 parameters (including a nested 'config' object) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, parameter constraints, or the behavior for required vs optional fields. The tool needs more context to be used correctly.
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 coverage is 0% (no description for parameters), and the description adds minimal meaning: it mentions 'one connector configuration' but does not explain the purpose of each parameter (e.g., valid connector_type values, config structure). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema details.
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 the tool's function: create and save a connector configuration. It specifies the purpose (data onboarding, health checks, schema browsing), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browse_connector, test_connector, delete_connector, etc.
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 that the tool is used to create connectors for later use, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No information about prerequisites or when not to use it is provided.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources or actions, but there is some overlap (e.g., run_repository_fix vs run_repository_pipeline vs simulate_repository) that could cause confusion. Overall, descriptions help differentiate.
Tool names are primarily snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies (e.g., single-word verbs like 'simulate', 'tokenize', and mixed prefixes like 'preview_', 'product_'). The pattern is readable but not uniform.
With 140 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for typical MCP usage. This overwhelms agents and suggests poor separation of concerns, likely violating the principle of minimal tool surfaces.
The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data onboarding, simulation, decisions, repository management, and admin operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_agent_run), but core workflows are well-supported.
