Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
segment-mcp

segment-mcp

by pedromfs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_source

Fetch a single Segment source by ID, including its settings, for read-only inspection of source configuration.

Instructions

Get a single Segment source by id, including its settings.

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": {
      "sourceId": "<sourceId>"
    },
    "name": "get_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceIdYesThe Segment source id (e.g. abc123).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only adds 'including its settings' about the payload. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior for a bad/unknown id, rate limits, or the shape of the returned object, which for a no-annotation tool is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One tight sentence with no filler and the resource scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it sacrifices some potentially useful detail rather than achieving ideal information density.

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?

For a simple single-record read with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what comes back; 'including its settings' gestures at this but does not describe the response envelope or id-resolution behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of any structured output documentation.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage (including the 'abc123' example), the schema already documents sourceId fully. The description adds no further semantics such as id format, source, or lookup fallback, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (Get) and resource (Segment source), and the qualifier 'single ... by id' separates it from the sibling list_sources. However, it never names the sibling alternative (get_destination, get_function) to sharpen the distinction, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. you need an id obtained from list_sources), and no exclusion of alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the required sourceId.

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