Skip to main content
Glama
EduBase

EduBase MCP Server

Official
by EduBase
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

edubase_patch_integration

Idempotent

Enable or disable an integration, or reassign it to a different organization. Manage integration status and ownership in one call.

Instructions

Enable or disable an integration, or move it to another organization.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activeNoenable or disable the integration
integrationYesintegration identification string
organizationNoorganization identification string to move the integration to, only an organization of the API application owner can be used, only the owner of the integration (or an administrator) can change the organization, send "none" (or an empty value) to remove the integration from its current organization, always the organization of the user for organizational members

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / organization
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "organization identification string to move the integration to, only an organization of the API application owner can be used, only the owner of the integration (or an administrator) can change the organization, send \"none\" (or an empty value) to remove the integration from its current organization, always the organization of the user for organizational members",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.2.9
  3. Removedv1.2.8
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.2
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  5. First observedv1.0.22

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description states mutation actions but adds no context beyond those hints, such as side effects of disabling or ownership requirements, though the schema covers some ownership constraints.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the primary actions and avoids filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Combined with the complete input schema and the mutation/idempotence annotations, the description gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly for the stated use cases. It could be more complete by noting that at least one of active/organization should be supplied and by naming sibling tools, but the remaining gap is small.

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%: active, integration, and organization all have descriptions. The prose mirrors those descriptions (enable/disable maps to active, move maps to organization) without adding new meaning beyond the schema.

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 names the resource (integration) and the concrete operations available (enable, disable, move to another organization). This distinguishes it from sibling get/post/delete_integration tools and is not a restatement of the tool name.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly maps user intent to this tool: choose it to enable, disable, or move an integration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as using post_integration for creation or delete_integration for removal, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools