i3X-MCP-Server

Connect to an i3X server

connect

Connect to an i3X instance by providing a base URL. Validates the connection and is required before using any data tools.

Instructions

Point the MCP server at an i3X instance. Required before any data tool will work (unless I3X_BASE_URL was set in the env). Validates by calling /info on the target. Switching connections at any time is fine — call this again.

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": {
      "baseUrl": "<baseUrl>"
    },
    "name": "connect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token`	No	Required when authScheme is "bearer" or "apikey".
`baseUrl`	Yes	Versioned base URL, e.g. https://api.i3x.dev/v1
`authScheme`	No	Default "none".
`apiKeyHeader`	No	Header name for apikey auth (default "X-API-Key").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations present, so description is the sole source. It mentions validation via /info and reconnection behavior, but lacks details on failure states, authentication side effects, or error handling.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose and essential usage context.

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?

Covers prerequisites, validation, and reconnection, but could clarify behavior when environment variable is set and interaction between optional parameters.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. Description adds only a brief example (e.g., URL format) but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool connects to an i3X instance, uses the verb 'point', and distinguishes it from sibling data tools by noting it is a prerequisite.

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?

Explicitly says it is required before data tools work and that switching connections is fine, but does not discuss when not to use or provide alternative connection methods.

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

Deploy Server