preview_test_connector
Run a real connectivity test for one inline connector definition without saving it.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config | No | ||
| connector_type | Yes |
Algenta MCP Server
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description indicates it's a 'real connectivity test' but does not disclose side effects, scope, or required permissions. It mentions 'without saving', implying no persistence, which is helpful but insufficient.
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?
Single sentence of 14 words, no filler, front-loads the action and key constraint ('without saving'). Efficient and clear.
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?
Given no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to explain return values or how to use the config parameter. A connectivity test tool should indicate what constitutes success/failure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no details about the two parameters (config, connector_type). The agent is left blind to what config should contain or valid values for connector_type.
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?
Description clearly states the tool runs a real connectivity test for an inline connector definition without saving, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like test_connector that likely persist. However, 'inline connector definition' is slightly vague.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. The phrase 'without saving' implies a use case, but the agent receives no direct comparison to sibling tools like test_connector or preview_browse_connector.
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.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
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.
Naming Consistency3/5
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.
Tool Count1/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.