Glean Connector MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

confirm_mappings

Save field mapping decisions from source schema to Glean entity fields. Merges with existing mappings in .glean/mappings.json.

Instructions

Save field mapping decisions to .glean/mappings.json. Merges with any existing mappings.

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": {
      "mappings": "<mappings>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_mappings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mappings`	Yes	List of source→Glean field mapping decisions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses merge behavior but omits details on permissions, error handling, side effects (e.g., overwrite policy), and return value, which are important for safe invocation.

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, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given low complexity (single param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but omits crucial details like conflict resolution, success/failure feedback, and integration with sibling tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; it does not explain field format, validation rules, or usage tips for the 'mappings' parameter.

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's action (save mapping decisions) and resource (.glean/mappings.json) with a specific verb and file path, distinguishing it from siblings like 'validate_mappings' and 'get_mappings'.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_mappings' or 'get_mappings'. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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