Skip to main content
Glama
LevSky22

nango-mcp-server

by LevSky22
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_connection_context

Fetch a compact, redacted snapshot of a single connection by environment, connection ID, and provider config key. Use it to review connection context without exposing sensitive data.

Instructions

Return a compact, redacted context view for one connection.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
environmentYes
connectionIdYes
providerConfigKeyYes
includeRawProviderTemplateNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / connectionId
      Added value: +{
+  "title": "Connectionid",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / connection_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Connection Id",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / includeRawProviderTemplate
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Includerawprovidertemplate",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / include_raw_provider_template
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": false,
-  "title": "Include Raw Provider Template",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / providerConfigKey
      Added value: +{
+  "title": "Providerconfigkey",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / provider_config_key
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Provider Config Key",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "environment",
-  "connection_id",
-  "provider_config_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "environment",
+  "connectionId",
+  "providerConfigKey"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the result is compact and redacted, implying a summarized, sanitized view. However, it does not state side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior when the connection is missing or invalid.

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 a single, tight sentence with the main verb and key qualifiers front-loaded. It is concise without being tautological, though it sacrifices some helpful detail for brevity.

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?

The output schema exists, so return structure is covered, but the description is too sparse given four parameters, zero annotation coverage, and a crowded sibling set. An agent lacks enough context to know when to prefer this over get_connection or how to interpret the parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description names none of the four parameters, including includeRawProviderTemplate, which is not self-explanatory. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names already visible in the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a distinct resource ('context view for one connection'), adding 'compact, redacted' to signal the output shape. It is clear in general, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_connection.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many connection-related siblings, especially get_connection. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which lookup is appropriate.

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