Retrieve a saved integration connection for an environment, connection ID, and provider config while redacting credential-like fields to keep sensitive data secure.
Get a Nango connection. Credential-like response fields are redacted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | Yes | ||
| connectionId | Yes | ||
| providerConfigKey | Yes | ||
| includeCredentials | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / connectionIdAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Connectionid",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / connection_idRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Connection Id",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / includeCredentialsAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Includecredentials",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / include_credentialsRemoved value: -{
- "default": false,
- "title": "Include Credentials",
- "type": "boolean"
-}Input schema / properties / providerConfigKeyAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Providerconfigkey",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / provider_config_keyRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Provider Config Key",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "environment",
- "connection_id",
- "provider_config_key"
-]New value: +[
+ "environment",
+ "connectionId",
+ "providerConfigKey"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait: credential-like response fields are redacted. However, it does not explain how includeCredentials affects that behavior, what response shape is returned, or whether there are side effects, leaving significant behavioral context unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the most important caveat (redaction) is placed prominently. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to be more informative to be complete. It leaves key call semantics undefined: parameter meanings, default vs. includeCredentials true behavior, response format, and potential errors. The redaction note is useful but not sufficient for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain environment, connectionId, providerConfigKey, or the implications of includeCredentials. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Nango connection.' It clearly identifies a single-connection fetch operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_connections or get_connection_context, so it falls short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives such as list_connections or get_connection_context. It provides neither prerequisites, exclusions, nor routing conditions. Any inference about usage must come from the tool name and sibling names rather than the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.