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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by specifying exactly what the response contains in different states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url), beyond what annotations cover.
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 primary purpose, followed by relevant condition-detail. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
Covers the two primary scenarios (all connected, credentials missing) but leaves intermediate states (partial connectivity) implicit. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 description correctly omits param details. Baseline of 4 applies since there is no parameter documentation burden.
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?
Clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific outcome conditions for connected vs. missing-credentials states. This distinguishes it from sibling 'authenticate' which actually performs authentication.
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?
Implies use for checking current connection status, but does not explicitly contrast with the 'authenticate' sibling or state when not to use. Provides outcome context for when all providers are connected vs. missing credentials, giving clear situational awareness.
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: authentication, connection status, FAP data query, marketplace catalog, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some are single-word verbs (connect, marketplace), one is snake_case with underscores (dataprev_fap_consultar), and others mix verb-noun (show_version) or noun-based (toolkit_info). There is no uniform pattern across the set.
With 7 tools, the set is reasonably scoped. It includes one domain-specific data tool and several generic platform utilities, which is slightly broad but not excessive or sparse.
For the primary purpose of FAP data lookup, the single query tool covers the core need. Authentication and status tools support the workflow, though there is no obvious additional data operation missing. The inclusion of platform-management tools extends beyond the domain but does not create a critical gap.