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 destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it describes the return values under different credential states (all connected vs. missing credentials). This goes 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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then provides conditional details. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition.
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?
For a simple zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the two main scenarios (all connected, credentials missing) and mentions key return fields. It doesn't cover partial connection states or exact URL structures, but the simplicity and annotations reduce the need for more.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description provides no irrelevant parameter information.
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, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status rather than authentication or other actions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies usage for checking connection status and explains conditional outcomes, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like authenticate. There's no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.
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.
The tool set mixes one domain-specific tool (ceaf_consultar) with several generic MCP platform utilities. There is some overlap between connect and toolkit_info (both report connection status), and marketplace bundles many capabilities, but the detailed descriptions mostly help disambiguate. Still, the distinct purposes are not as clear as they could be.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some are nouns (marketplace), and two use snake_case (ceaf_consultar, toolkit_info). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, mixing styles across the set.
Seven tools is within the typical range, but the server's name suggests a single-purpose CEAF service. The inclusion of six generic platform tools feels bloated for that specific purpose, though it would be reasonable for a general MCP management server.
For a CEAF consultation service, only ceaf_consultar provides domain functionality; there are no batch lookups, detailed record views, or history features. The remaining tools are unrelated meta-tools, making the surface severely incomplete for the server's apparent domain focus.