Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Latent Defense MCP Server

Latent Defense MCP Server

Official
by latent-defense
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

test_connector

Verify a connector's connection without storing artifacts, returning record count or error details to confirm connectivity.

Instructions

Test a connector's connection without persisting artifacts. Returns record count or error details.

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": {
      "connector_id": "<connector_id>"
    },
    "name": "test_connector"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
connector_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses non-destructive behavior ('without persisting artifacts') and return type ('record count or error details'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or potential errors beyond the mentioned.

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, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every phrase adds value: action, resource, key constraint, and return type.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single param, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is nearly complete. It lacks usage guidance but covers purpose, key behavioral constraint, and return format.

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?

One parameter (connector_id) with 0% schema description coverage. Description does not mention or explain the parameter, leaving agents to infer its meaning from context. Baseline for low coverage requires compensation, which is absent.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'test' and resource 'connector's connection', and differentiates from siblings by noting 'without persisting artifacts', which distinguishes it from create_connector and possibly connector_health.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like connector_health or get_connector. Usage is implied by the non-persisting nature, but no when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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