Skip to main content
Glama

Sendblox

Get Integration Status

get_integration_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

APP: Reads one CRM integration status in the Sendblox app without raw OAuth state. Does not publish an integration web page.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_integration_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
integrationIdNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobIdNo
resultYes
statusYes
summaryNo
blockersYes
warningsYes
readinessNo
requestIdYes
retryableNo
nextPossibleActionsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful security-related note that raw OAuth state is not returned, but 'does not publish an integration web page' is confusing and adds little behavioral clarity.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the 'APP:' prefix and the two negative clauses are low-value and slightly obscure. It is short, but not every sentence earns its place.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, but the description leaves two undocumented identifier parameters entirely ambiguous. For a lookup tool with optional id and integrationId fields, more routing or parameter guidance is needed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the two optional parameters, id and integrationId. It does not explain which identifier to use, whether they are alternatives, or how a single integration is selected, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: reads one CRM integration status in the Sendblox app. It implicitly contrasts with list_integrations by saying 'one,' but does not name the sibling or otherwise explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

Usage is implied by 'reads one CRM integration status,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_integrations or sync_integration. The exclusions ('without raw OAuth state', 'does not publish an integration web page') do not tell the agent when to select this tool.

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.

Resources