Skip to main content
Glama
EduBase

EduBase MCP Server

Official
by EduBase
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

edubase_post_integration

Create a new API or LMS (LTI 1.0/1.1 or 1.3) integration. Provide title, type, and platform to receive an integration ID for retrieving keys.

Instructions

Create a new API or LMS (LTI 1.0/1.1 or 1.3) integration. Returns the integration identification string, get its keys with edubase_get_integration_keys.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ltiNoLTI version, required for LMS integrations
typeNotype of the integration (default: api)
titleYestitle of the integration
platformNoLMS platform URL, only necessary for LMS integrations!
descriptionNooptional short description
organizationNoorganization identification string to assign the integration to, only an organization of the API application owner can be used, always the organization of the user for organizational members

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
integrationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • removedOutput schema / properties / integration / description
      Removed value: -"integration identification string"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / organization
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "organization identification string to assign the integration to, only an organization of the API application owner can be used, always the organization of the user for organizational members",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.1.2
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • changedInput schema / properties / lti / description
      Previous value: -"LTI version (1.0/1.1 / 1.3), only necessary for LMS integrations!"New value: +"LTI version, required for LMS integrations"
    • addedInput schema / properties / lti / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "1.0/1.1",
+  "1.3"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"type of the integration (api / moodle / canvas / d2l / schoology / lms)"New value: +"type of the integration (default: api)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "api",
+  "moodle",
+  "canvas",
+  "d2l",
+  "schoology",
+  "lms"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "integration": {
+      "description": "integration identification string",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "integration"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. First observedv1.0.22

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the description's 'create' action. However, annotations do not provide coverage on other behavioral aspects, and the description does not disclose details such as any required authentication, potential side effects like creating default resources, or what happens if the title already exists. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic 'create' semantics, so it relies on the schema for parameters. A score of 3 is appropriate because there is no contradiction and some value is added by clarifying the resource type.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are to the point. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second sentence provides a clear next-step instruction. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is relatively complex with multiple types of integrations and many parameters, but the schema covers all parameters and there is an output schema. The description provides a clear purpose and next-step guidance, which is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The lack of detailed behavioral nuances (like error handling) is minor given the annotations and schema coverage. Almost complete, missing only minor edge-case details.

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% (all parameters have descriptions), so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. However, the description does not repeat or clarify any of the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is maintained because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 creates a new API or LMS (LTI 1.0/1.1 or 1.3) integration, identifying the specific resource type and the action. It also distinguishes from related tools like edubase_get_integrations and edubase_get_integration_keys by outlining the follow-up step of retrieving keys.

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?

The description explicitly mentions that it returns the integration identification string and directs the agent to use edubase_get_integration_keys to get the keys, providing clear post-creation guidance. It also implies that this is the creation tool, distinguishing it from patch/delete integration tools based on the verb. This is sufficient for when to use it.

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