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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing what is returned in two distinct scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url and per-install URLs), providing concrete response semantics beyond the annotations.
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 concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded ('Returns connection status and URLs'). Every word adds value, with 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description fully covers the two functional states and their corresponding return values. Annotations already cover safety, so no further behavioral disclosure is needed. The description is complete for its simple scope.
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 schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no param information because none are needed, 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 uses a specific verb 'returns' with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing purely on status reporting rather than performing authentication. The conditional behavior further clarifies its role.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need connection status or authentication URLs. It provides context by explaining the two possible states (all connected vs. missing credentials), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which would be stronger 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (authenticate, query registration, report bugs, show version), but connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace overlap somewhat in connection status and toolkit state. Detailed descriptions help disambiguate, but a few boundaries are blurry.
Tool names mix verb-first patterns (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with noun-first (marketplace, toolkit_info) and a Portuguese-style compound (confea_crea_consultar). There is no consistent naming convention, making the set feel haphazard.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range. However, the server's stated domain (CONFEA/CREA) is represented by only one tool, while the other six are generic platform utilities, making the count feel unbalanced for the stated purpose.
For an engineering registration domain, the server offers only a single lookup tool (confea_crea_consultar), with no additional operations like listing, updating, or verification. The remaining tools are unrelated to the domain, leaving the domain-specific surface severely limited.