@createworker/mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Connect an external API

connection_create_api

Create a generic API connection for a bound worker to call your app's API. Define allowed hostnames for SSRF protection.

Instructions

Create a generic_api connection so a bound worker can call YOUR app's API (outbound). allowedHosts is the required SSRF allowlist (e.g. ['api.example.com']).

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": {
      "displayName": "<displayName>",
      "allowedHosts": "<allowedHosts>"
    },
    "name": "connection_create_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apiKey`	No
`baseUrl`	No
`authMode`	No
`bearerToken`	No
`displayName`	Yes	a label
`allowedHosts`	Yes	hostnames the worker may call; supports *.example.com
`basicPassword`	No
`basicUsername`	No
`apiKeyHeaderName`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the purpose and required allowedHosts for SSRF protection, but omits behavioral traits like whether the connection is immediately usable, if it overwrites existing connections, authorization requirements, or error handling. The sparse description leaves many behavioral aspects undefined.

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?

The description is brief at two sentences, front-loading the core action and key constraint. It avoids fluff, but the first sentence is slightly dense; however, it efficiently communicates the purpose without excess.

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 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is far from complete. It lacks details on auth modes, return values, side effects, and usage nuances. A tool with this complexity demands richer context for reliable agent invocation.

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 only 22%, with only displayName and allowedHosts having descriptions. The description adds meaningful context for allowedHosts (required SSRF allowlist), but provides no information for the other 7 parameters (apiKey, authMode, etc.). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents uninformed about critical fields.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'generic_api connection' with specific context: outbound calls from a worker. It distinguishes from siblings like connection_create_webhook by mentioning 'generic_api' and the purpose 'outbound'. The required SSRF allowlist is highlighted, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

The description implicitly specifies usage for creating an outbound API connection with allowedHosts, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools (e.g., connection_create_webhook) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from surrounding tools.

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