Glean Connector MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

inspect_execution

Retrieve execution status, records, validation results, and recent logs for a connector run.

Instructions

Check execution status and retrieve records. Returns status, records fetched, per-record validation results, and recent logs.

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": {
      "execution_id": "<execution_id>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_execution"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum records to return
`offset`	No	Record pagination offset
`execution_id`	Yes	The execution_id returned by run_connector

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what is returned but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. The term 'check' suggests non-destructive behavior, but this is not explicit.

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 sentences front-load the purpose and then detail return values. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides return components but lacks details on pagination behavior (limit/offset) and structure of 'per-record validation results'. Adequate but not comprehensive for a tool without output schema.

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% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond listing the execution_id source and return types. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Check' and resource 'execution status and retrieve records', and lists specific return values (status, records, validation results, logs). It implies a post-execution inspection role, differentiating from sibling tools like run_connector.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage after run_connector via the parameter description referencing 'execution_id returned by run_connector', but lacks direct guidance or exclusions.

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