@qed-proof/mcp

List connected destinations

list_connections

Read-onlyIdempotent

List connected external destinations and check whether each verifier is live to confirm integration status.

Instructions

Lists the destinations the workspace has connected read-only (for example GitHub, Slack, X) and whether a verifier is live for each. Read-only: connecting or disconnecting happens in the QED Proof console, not here.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_connections"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful context beyond those hints by clarifying that mutations happen externally in the QED Proof console and that the list includes live verifier status. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, with the core purpose and output front-loaded in the first sentence and the read-only constraint in the second. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the title.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is complete: it states what is listed, the per-item status, and where mutations happen. The annotations cover safety, and no output schema is present, so the description's summary of return content is sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to add about individual parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output instead.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Lists'), the resource ('destinations the workspace has connected'), and the key output detail ('whether a verifier is live for each'). It also gives concrete examples (GitHub, Slack, X) and clearly marks the operation as read-only, making it easy to distinguish from the mutation-oriented siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: this tool is for viewing connections and their verifier status, not for changing them. It explicitly says connecting or disconnecting happens in the QED Proof console, not here. It does not name a sibling tool as an alternative, but the when-not-to-use guidance is explicit.

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

Deploy Server