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. The description adds value by detailing the response structure in two specific conditions (all connected vs missing credentials), which goes 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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the purpose and detail key response conditions without any fluff.
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?
The description covers two main states but may be incomplete regarding partial connections or additional response fields. Given no output schema, more detail on the full response structure would improve completeness.
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, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 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 returns connection status and URLs, specifying the verb (returns) and resource (connection status). It distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' by implication, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'authenticate'. The description only describes behavior without stating the appropriate context for invocation.
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.
Many tools have nearly identical descriptions, differing only by a single action name (e.g., dietbox_agenda_list vs dietbox_agenda_summary, multiple anamnesis read tools). This makes it hard for an agent to choose the correct tool. The splitting of CRUD operations into separate tools per action creates significant overlap.
Most Dietbox tools follow a consistent `dietbox_<entity>_<action>` snake_case pattern, but tools like `authenticate`, `connect`, `marketplace`, `report_bug`, `show_version`, and `toolkit_info` break this, making naming partially inconsistent. Overall, the pattern is clear for the core domain.
With 42 tools, the server is overburdened. Many tools are redundant due to splitting actions (e.g., three read tools for anamnesis), and non-domain tools (marketplace, bug reporting) inflate the count unnecessarily. A more streamlined set of 15-20 tools would be more appropriate.
The server covers a wide range of nutrition practice features: patients, appointments, anamnesis, anthropometry, chat, food diary, goals, finances, meal plans (read-only), prescriptions, and clinical records. However, notable write operations are missing (meal plans, goals, finance transactions), and some read-only tools lack corresponding edits.