Retrieve a Nango integration's configuration with credentials redacted by default. Optionally includeCredentials to obtain full details, enabling verification or management of API integrations.
Get one Nango integration. Credential-like response fields are redacted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | Yes | ||
| integrationId | Yes | ||
| includeCredentials | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput 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 / integrationIdAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Integrationid",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / integration_idRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Integration Id",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "environment",
- "integration_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "environment",
+ "integrationId"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The redaction statement is a useful behavioral disclosure, especially since no annotations are present. However, it does not clarify how the includeCredentials parameter interacts with this redaction, leaving ambiguity about whether credentials are ever returned. No annotation contradiction exists.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key security-relevant caveat. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool has three parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description leaves important context unexplained: what values environment accepts, what integrationId refers to precisely, and what includeCredentials actually changes. The redaction note is helpful but not enough for complete invocation confidence.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters but does not mention environment, integrationId, or includeCredentials semantics. The redaction note relates to output behavior, not to what the parameters mean or how to supply them.
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 clearly states the action ('Get one Nango integration') and the resource, so an agent knows this is a single-item retrieval rather than a listing. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_integrations, but the singular 'one' provides enough separation.
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 phrasing implies the tool is for fetching a single integration by ID, which gives some usage context. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternatives such as list_integrations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.