Skip to main content
Glama

ROKI Connect

by la.roki

Execute an operation against the ROKI sandbox and see the real response

roki_sandbox_try

Runs a documented operation against the ROKI sandbox using THIS SERVER'S own test credential, and returns the actual response. Use it to prove an integration works instead of assuming it does - especially after roki_validate_request says a payload is valid.

You never supply a key: this server holds a sandbox-only credential and refuses to run against production. Amounts are capped and links expire quickly, because the sandbox is shared.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payloadNoRequest body for POST operations, or path values such as {"id": 123} / {"transaction_id": "uuid"}.
operationYesoperationId to run, e.g. "createPayment", "getPayment", "voidTransaction".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it uses the server's own test credential, refuses production, caps amounts, and shares links that expire. These are important side-effect details not inferable from the annotations alone.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then usage context, then safety/limitation notes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the operation, the sandbox context, security posture, and typical use case. The return value is simply 'the actual response', which is adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'operation' and 'payload'. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool 'runs a documented operation against the ROKI sandbox' and returns the actual response. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like roki_validate_request (validation) and roki_get_operation (docs) by focusing on execution against the sandbox.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use it to prove an integration works instead of assuming it does - especially after roki_validate_request says a payload is valid.' It also clarifies constraints (never supply a key, production refused, shared sandbox), providing clear when-to-use context.

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

All ROKI Connect toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from searching docs to validating requests to verifying webhook signatures. Even similarly named tools like roki_get_integration_example and roki_scaffold_integration are differentiated by 'complete runnable' vs 'skeleton'.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools mostly follow a roki_verb_noun pattern (get, list, search, validate, verify), but a few deviate with noun-only names like roki_status and roki_sandbox_info. The prefix and clear verbs make the pattern predictable overall.

Tool Count4/5

18 tools is on the heavy side, but each serves a distinct role in the integration workflow covered by this server. The count is justified given the breadth of documentation, validation, sandbox, and example generation features.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of an integration: discovery (search_docs, list_operations), learning (guides, examples, schemas), validation (validate_request), sandbox testing (sandbox_try), verification (verify_webhook_signature), and post-integration auditing. No obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose.

Resources