Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

OpenPanel: Test connection

openpanel_test_connection
Read-only

Verify OpenPanel API connectivity with current credentials for a specified site to confirm access before running analytics or management tasks.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Test connection to OpenPanel API with current credentials.

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": {
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "openpanel_test_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, lowering the burden. 'With current credentials' adds that no credential arguments are needed, but the description does not say what a failure looks like, whether the call is rate-limited, or what it verifies.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The '[UNIFIED]' tag spends characters on a label the agent cannot act on.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with a required, undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should say what 'site' is and what a result indicates (success/failure, credential state). Neither is covered, leaving the agent to guess at invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'site', and the description does nothing to compensate. It never explains whether 'site' is a domain, a project ID, or what value the agent should supply to test a connection.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: tests the OpenPanel API connection using the current credentials. The scope (credential verification, not data retrieval) is clear, though the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained noise and the description does not differentiate it from the sibling openpanel_health_check.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus openpanel_health_check or openpanel_get_instance_info, and no stated preconditions (e.g., that credentials must already be configured). The only implied context is 'current credentials', which an agent must infer.

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