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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds conditional output semantics ('authenticated:true and empty pending[]' vs 'connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs'). This is useful context beyond the annotations and does not contradict 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concrete conditions. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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 output schema, the description appropriately explains the main return branches and URL outputs. It could elaborate on partial connection states or pending[] contents, but for a zero-parameter read-only status tool, the coverage is largely 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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema leaves nothing to explain. The description therefore does not need to add parameter details; baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 says 'Returns connection status and URLs' and details two output conditions (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url plus per-install URLs). This is a specific verb+resource statement, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'authenticate' tool, so it stops 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The output conditions imply a diagnostic use: check connectivity before/instead of authenticating, and retrieve connect URLs when credentials are missing. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the use context is clear enough for a simple status tool.
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 clearly distinct purposes (auth, connection status, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit state, and the CAR query). Some ambiguity exists between `marketplace` and `toolkit_info` (both deal with tool listings) and between `authenticate` and `connect` (both relate to connections), but detailed descriptions mitigate confusion. Overall, an agent can usually pick the right tool.
Names follow a consistent snake_case style, but the pattern is mixed: some are imperative verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`, `report_bug`, `show_version`), some are noun phrases (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), and one is domain-specific (`car_imovel_consultar`). This inconsistency is readable but less predictable than a uniform verb_noun pattern.
At 7 tools, the count is within the typical 3-15 range. However, the server's stated purpose is the CAR domain, yet only one tool is CAR-specific; the rest are generic platform utilities. While the count itself is reasonable, the mix feels somewhat bloated for a specialized server, though not extreme.
For the CAR domain, the single `car_imovel_consultar` tool covers the apparent need for querying property information, but there are no additional operations like listing or updating. The generic tools (marketplace, etc.) are complete for platform management, but the domain surface feels thin, especially given the server's name. No obvious dead ends for the primary use case, but the coverage is minimal.