Табуля

connections_agent_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns a single agent connection: its plan (endpoints the AI configured), API schema, secret binding names (never their values), and last test status. Signature: connections_agent_get(connection_uuid, space_uuid?).

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": {
      "connection_uuid": "<connection_uuid>"
    },
    "name": "connections_agent_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`space_uuid`	No	UUID of the Tabulya space. Optional — auto-detected when you belong to exactly one space.
`connection_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the agent connection.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`plan`	Yes
`uuid`	Yes
`apiSchema`	Yes
`createdBy`	Yes
`createdDate`	Yes
`draftStatus`	Yes
`oauthStatus`	Yes
`updatedDate`	Yes
`lastTestedAt`	Yes
`thumbnailUrl`	Yes
`lastTestError`	Yes
`lastTestStatus`	Yes
`secretBindings`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses what data is returned and specifically that secret binding names are shown but never their values, which is a useful security-sensitive detail. It stops short of covering auth requirements or error behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return content, with zero wasted words. The signature sentence is slightly redundant with the schema but does not harm readability.

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?

For a read-only get tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers return contents and secret handling; it could add what happens when the connection is not found, but no critical call-blocking information is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's signature adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is in the schema, leaving the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('a single agent connection') and enumerates the returned fields (plan, API schema, secret binding names, last test status). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from connections_agent_list, but it does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The 'Signature:' line is a mechanical restatement of the schema, not usage guidance. An agent must infer that this is the tool for retrieving details of one connection versus connections_agent_list.

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

All Табуля tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?