Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@millwork/solver-mcp

@millwork/solver-mcp

Official
by millworkdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

solver_list_source_connections

List tenant source connections and review their test/rotation state to verify model source readiness. Retrieve broker handles and statuses for quick assessment.

Instructions

List this tenant's source connections with their test/rotation state (GET /v1/source-connections). auth_binding_ref is an opaque broker handle, never a secret.

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": "solver_list_source_connections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly identifies GET /v1/source-connections, indicating a read-only list operation, and adds a valuable clarification that auth_binding_ref is an opaque handle and not a secret. Pagination or rate limits are not discussed, but for a zero-parameter read list the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 tight sentences: the first states the action, resource, scope, and endpoint; the second adds a relevant security clarification. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, scope, endpoint, and a key response attribute. It could say more about the full return shape or the meaning of test/rotation state, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already exhaustively covers the input surface. The description adds useful scoping ('this tenant's') and the endpoint, which is meaningful context beyond the empty 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 uses a specific verb 'List' plus a specific resource 'source connections' and clarifies the tenant scope and included state (test/rotation). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like solver_list_sources or mutation-oriented tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially solver_list_sources. The listing intent is implied, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria stated.

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