Search Nango provider templates to explore integration options before creation. Use query, limit, and environment to filter results.
Search Nango provider templates before creating an integration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| environment | Yes | ||
| includeRawTemplates | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / includeRawTemplatesAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Includerawtemplates",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / include_raw_templatesRemoved value: -{
- "default": false,
- "title": "Include Raw Templates",
- "type": "boolean"
-}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Search' implies a read-only lookup and 'before creating an integration' reinforces that it is not a mutation. However, it does not disclose behavior around raw templates, environment requirements, or what happens when no matches are found.
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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The main action and workflow position are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and immediately actionable.
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 output schema may cover return values, but the tool has four input parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. The description lacks enough detail about required inputs and template filtering behavior for an agent to invoke it with confidence; `includeRawTemplates` is particularly opaque.
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 does not explain the four parameters. 'Search' hints that `query` is the search term, but `environment`, `limit`, and especially `includeRawTemplates` are left undefined. The description needed to compensate for missing schema descriptions and does not.
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 a specific action and resource: 'Search Nango provider templates before creating an integration.' It identifies the tool's role as a pre-creation lookup and separates it from integration/connection management siblings. It does not explicitly contrast it with an alternative tool, but the resource and workflow are clear.
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 explicit temporal guidance: use this 'before creating an integration,' which tells the agent when in the workflow the tool belongs. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the pre-creation context is strong enough for a simple search tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.