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?
The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the conditional behavior of the response (authenticated vs. connect_url). Annotations already confirm read-only and idempotent, so this is additive without contradiction.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
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 stateless read tool with no parameters or output schema, the description covers the main response variations. It could mention the structure (JSON object) but that is implied. Overall complete enough.
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 info, and it appropriately doesn't.
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, and explains the two possible states (all connected vs. missing credentials). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or getnet_* functions.
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?
It provides clear context on when to use the tool (to check connection status) and what the response looks like in different scenarios. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the read-only nature is implied.
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 function: Getnet-specific tools target different resources (cards, payments, customers, accounts), while platform tools handle authentication, connection status, marketplace lookup, bug reporting, and version info. There is no overlap in the actions they perform.
The Getnet tools follow a consistent `getnet_` prefix with verb_noun structure, but the platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) use a mix of bare verbs and noun phrases, and lack the prefix. This creates two divergent naming conventions within the same server.
With 11 tools, the server has a reasonable number for a mixed-purpose integration. However, the inclusion of platform-wide management tools alongside Getnet-specific ones makes the scope feel broader than a typical payment server, but the count itself is not excessive.
The Getnet-specific tools are read-only (list/get operations) with no ability to create, update, or delete customers, cards, or payments. This is a significant gap for a payment-related server, though the marketplace tool could potentially compensate by invoking other MCPs.