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 establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable conditional behavior: the difference between a fully connected state and a credentials-missing state, including the returned fields. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.
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-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds meaningful detail. There is no fluff or repetition of annotation data.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return values and the two key states (all connected vs missing credentials). It is sufficiently complete for a zero-parameter status tool, though it could specify exact field names more precisely.
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 tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate since the tool's semantics are fully captured by its parameterless schema.
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's purpose: returning connection status and URLs. It provides specific behavioral details (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url) that distinguish it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.
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 explains conditional outcomes but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives. It implies usage as a status-checking tool, but there is no direct guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to the authenticate sibling.
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.
Tools are generally distinct, with the domain-specific consult tool clearly separated from platform utilities. However, 'marketplace' is a broad catch-all that overlaps with 'toolkit_info' for listing/installing capabilities, creating potential confusion.
Naming is inconsistent: verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), compound names with underscores (mpf_processos_consultar, toolkit_info). No consistent verb-noun or noun-verb pattern, mixing English and Portuguese.
With 7 tools, the count is moderate, but only one tool serves the stated domain (MPF Processos). The other six are generic platform management tools that belong to a separate server, making the set feel bloated and misaligned with its name.
The core consultation tool covers the primary need but offers no additional process-related operations (e.g., listing, detailing, or updating). The platform tools do not contribute to domain completeness, leaving the surface minimal but functional.