Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Latent Defense MCP Server

Latent Defense MCP Server

Official
by latent-defense
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

test_ticket_provider

Test authentication for a configured or specified ticketing provider without activating it. Optionally override configuration for testing.

Instructions

Test a ticketing provider's auth without making it active.

Args: provider: Provider name to test. Leave empty to test the currently-configured provider. config: Optional JSON object with config overrides to test.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "test_ticket_provider"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerNo
configNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description clearly states the key behavioral trait: it tests auth without making the provider active. With no annotations, it adequately conveys safety (non-destructive) and testing purpose. It could detail side effects or return values, but the core behavior is clear.

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?

The description is concise: one sentence for purpose followed by parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the tool's simple nature, the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention success/failure indication or prerequisites, but is largely complete for a test tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description adds complete context for both parameters: explaining that 'provider' can be empty to test the current one, and 'config' is for overrides. This significantly adds value beyond the schema, which only provides titles and defaults.

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 explicitly states it tests a ticketing provider's auth without activating it. It uses a specific verb+resource (test, ticketing provider auth) and clearly distinguishes from siblings like configure_ticket_provider and set_active_ticket_provider.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use (for testing auth before activation) and that it doesn't make the provider active. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some implicit guidance.

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