Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Annotations indicate readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output based on connection state, which is not covered by annotations. No contradiction observed.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and result. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior for both states. Complete for its simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info but explains output semantics, which is appropriate given zero parameters.
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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing between connected and missing credentials states. It specifies exact return fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implicitly guides usage by explaining when to expect authenticated:true vs connect_url. It could explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like authenticate, but the behavior explanation is sufficient for most contexts.
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.
Tools have distinct primary purposes, but marketplace and search_tools overlap heavily: both cover search/describe/invoke for the MCP catalog. An agent may be uncertain which to call for a simple catalog lookup, though marketplace's broader scope (install, prompts, billing) helps differentiate.
Most tools use verb_noun style (report_bug, search_tools, show_version) or bare verbs (authenticate, connect), but 'marketplace' and 'toolkit_info' are noun-based. The mixed conventions are still readable and predictable enough.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a platform management server. Each tool covers a distinct area: auth, connection status, catalog access, feedback, version, and toolkit state, with no bloat.
The surface covers core platform operations: authentication, connection checks, catalog search/invoke (via marketplace and search_tools), bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. Minor gaps like explicit uninstall or user management are handled indirectly through marketplace's install/subscribe actions.