Skip to main content
Glama
RPasquale

lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

invoke_tool

Invoke governed platform tools and connectors under exact project/account custody. Use list_connectors to discover available actions.

Instructions

Invoke a platform tool through exact governed project/account custody.

Tools include connector operations (e.g. "hubspot.list_contacts"), utility tools, and more. Use list_connectors to see available tools.

Args: tool_name: The tool to invoke (e.g. "slack.post_message") arguments: JSON string of tool arguments project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. Must be omitted for ephemeral private-response reads such as shopify.list_abandoned_checkouts and gmail.get_thread; they always refresh and reject caller replay identity. effect: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectNo
argumentsNo{}
tool_nameYes
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Approval Ref",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / effect
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Effect",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Idempotency Key",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Project Id",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Project Ref",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses governed project/account custody, effect verification by Spring, idempotency_key constraints for ephemeral reads, and approval_ref requirements for resuming writes. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to invoke safely.

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 front-loaded and well-structured, with a short summary followed by a clean Args list. Each line contributes meaning, though phrases like 'exact governed project/account custody' are slightly vague and could be clearer without much added length.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a generic dispatcher with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers discovery, argument format, identity/account context, idempotency idiosyncrasies, and approval resumption. It is nearly complete, but it leaves 'Spring' verification unexplained and does not clarify which of the project custody parameters are optional or conditionally required.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: tool_name with examples, arguments as a JSON string, project_id, project_ref, connector_account_ref, idempotency_key, effect, and approval_ref. It even includes edge-case constraints like omitting idempotency_key for certain ephemeral reads.

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 clearly identifies a generic dispatch action: 'Invoke a platform tool', with concrete examples like 'hubspot.list_contacts' and 'slack.post_message'. It is clear that this is a dynamic invocation tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with direct sibling connector tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives useful context by saying tools include connector operations and utility tools, and it directs agents to list_connectors for discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this generic invoker versus calling a specific sibling tool directly, nor does it mention exclusions.

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