nango-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_integration

Patch an existing integration's configuration in a specific environment. Provide the integration ID and fields to update, with options to reconnect connections.

Instructions

Patch a Nango integration.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "environment": "<environment>",
      "integrationId": "<integrationId>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "update_integration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	Yes
`environment`	Yes
`integrationId`	Yes
`reconnectConnectionIds`	No
`autoReconnectSingleMatchingConnection`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv2.0.0Aug 29, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / autoReconnectSingleMatchingConnection

Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "title": "Autoreconnectsinglematchingconnection",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / auto_reconnect_single_matching_connection

Removed value: -{
-  "default": true,
-  "title": "Auto Reconnect Single Matching Connection",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / integrationId

Added value: +{
+  "title": "Integrationid",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / integration_id

Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Integration Id",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / reconnectConnectionIds

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "title": "Reconnectconnectionids"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / reconnect_connection_ids

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Reconnect Connection Ids"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "environment",
-  "integration_id",
-  "fields"
-]New value: +[
+  "environment",
+  "integrationId",
+  "fields"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0Aug 25, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / confirmation
```
Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "title": "Confirmation",
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
First observedv0.1.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Patch' implies a mutation, but it does not disclose whether the update merges or replaces fields, what happens to existing connection data, whether reconnection is triggered, or what side effects may occur. This is slightly better than nothing but still very thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise in length, but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured. It does communicate the core action quickly, but it lacks the meaningful detail that would justify its minimalism.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This tool has five parameters, three required, a nested object, a boolean with default, an array/null union, no annotations, and no output schema. A single sentence without parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral effects is not remotely sufficient for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 provides zero parameter-level information. None of the five parameters (environment, integrationId, fields, reconnectConnectionIds, autoReconnectSingleMatchingConnection) are explained, and the free-form 'fields' object is completely uninterpretable from the description alone.

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 ('Patch') with a clear resource ('a Nango integration'), and the PATCH semantics distinguish it from create/delete/get sibling tools. It is not a full tautology, though it does not explain what an integration is or what aspects can be updated.

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 create_integration, delete_integration, or update_connection_metadata. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided; the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.