integrations_getRetrieve configuration details and available operations for a specific integration provider using its key, such as claude, slack, or hubspot.
Show details and operations for one provider
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Integration provider key (e.g. claude, slack, hubspot) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.27Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful detail that the response includes supported operations, not just metadata, but says nothing about what those operations are or how the result is shaped.
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?
One tight sentence with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse to carry much value, but nothing is wasted.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It still leaves the agent guessing how this differs from integrations_list and what 'operations' contains, which matters in a sibling set this crowded.
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?
The schema documents the sole 'provider' parameter at 100% coverage with examples (claude, slack, hubspot). The description's 'one provider' phrasing reinforces the single-provider intent but adds no format or lookup semantics beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Show details and operations for one provider', which clearly frames this as a single-provider fetch. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like integrations_list or integrations_execute, but the 'one provider' scope is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus integrations_list, integrations_connections_list, integrations_execute, or the various integrations_oauth_* tools in the sibling set. The agent must infer that this is the detail-fetch for a single provider with no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.