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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the output in different connection states, which goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and to the point.
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?
Given no parameters, comprehensive annotations, and clear explanation of return states, the description is fully adequate for the tool's 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 schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none.
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, and explains the two possible states (all connected vs missing credentials). It accurately describes the resource and action.
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. The sibling list includes 'authenticate' and 'marketplace', which suggests this is for status checking, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use is provided.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get/list for specific Bling entities (contacts, NFEs, sales orders, products, etc.) and separate platform tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.). No overlapping functionality.
Bling tools follow a consistent 'bling_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., bling_get_contato, bling_list_produtos), while platform tools use simple English names (authenticate, marketplace). The deviation is minor and explainable by the two distinct categories.
22 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range for a single server, but the number is justified by the comprehensive coverage of Bling entities and additional platform utilities. Not excessive.
The Bling tools are read-only (list/get only), lacking any create, update, or delete operations. This is a significant gap for a business management integration, limiting the agent's ability to perform full data lifecycle operations.