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 indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about the response structure (authenticated flag, pending array) and how it varies based on connection state, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail about behavior. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
Without an output schema, the description explains the key return scenarios and fields. It could be slightly more detailed about the structure of pending[] or URLs, but for a zero-parameter status tool with strong annotations, it is sufficient.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and does not add any, which is appropriate.
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's function with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the act of authenticating.
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 provides clear contextual usage by explaining what happens in different states (all providers connected vs. credentials missing). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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 role: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit inspection, and CEP lookup. There is minor overlap between connect and toolkit_info (both show connection status) and between authenticate and marketplace (both handle credentials), but descriptions are detailed enough to avoid misselection.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), verb-noun (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese phrase (busca_cep_consultar). Mixing languages and styles creates confusion about the naming convention.
Seven tools is a well-scoped count for a platform-style server that handles authentication, marketplace, connection management, and a core CEP lookup. Each tool serves a distinct function and none feels extraneous.
For the apparent CEP domain, the palette is thin: only one tool (busca_cep_consultar) and it only maps address to CEP, lacking a reverse CEP-to-address lookup. The platform tools are fairly complete for managing MCPs, but the domain-specific coverage has a notable gap.