create_destinationAuthenticated tool for creating an outbound destination and connection with retry policy and optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| sourceId | Yes | ||
| endpointUrl | Yes | ||
| signingSecret | No | ||
| filterBodyPath | No | ||
| filterBodyValue | No | ||
| filterEntityKey | No | ||
| filterEventTypes | No | ||
| retryMaxAttempts | No | ||
| transformBodyPath | No | ||
| rateLimitPerMinute | No | ||
| retryBackoffSeconds | No | ||
| transformExpression | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions authentication but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., state changes), irreversibility, or rate limits. With minimal annotation coverage, the description carries the burden but adds little beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 15 words with no wasted verbiage. Every word adds value, making it highly concise for its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 13 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., sourceId must exist), leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It groups parameters into 'retry policy and optional filters', but this is too vague given 13 parameters. No per-parameter details are provided, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'creating' and resource 'outbound destination and connection', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_source or create_endpoint. However, it could be more precise about the exact nature of the 'connection' and how it relates to other similar constructs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 versus alternatives like create_endpoint. The description only states it is authenticated, but does not provide context on prerequisites or situations where other tools are preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between `list_messages`, `list_recent_events`, and `list_message_attempts`, and between `replay_event` and `replay_events`. However, the descriptions generally clarify differences.
The naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern (create_, list_, get_, update_, delete_), with consistent snake_case. A few tools like `rotate_endpoint_secret` and `upsert_event_type` deviate but still use verb_noun structure.
With 52 tools, the set is extremely large and may overwhelm agents. While the domain is complex, this many tools reduce coherence and make selection more difficult.
The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering CRUD for most resources, replay, retries, anomaly management, and webhook setup. Minor gaps exist (no delete for destinations, no update for sources), but core workflows are well-supported.