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 and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by describing conditional return states: authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url when credentials are missing. This explains behavior beyond the annotation flags.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundancy or filler content.
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?
Simple tool with no parameters and no output schema; description adequately covers the two primary output states. Minor omission: does not explain the 'pending' array contents, but not critical for understanding usage.
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?
Tool has 0 parameters, so the schema fully defines the input (none). Description does not need to explain parameters; baseline 4 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with a specific verb 'returns' and a clear resource. This differentiates it from sibling 'authenticate' which likely initiates 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The conditional output implicitly hints at checking authentication, but it does not directly state 'use this to verify connection' or contrast with sibling tools.
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.
The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are individually distinct, but the server is named 'OFAC (Sanções EUA)' and contains a single OFAC-specific tool alongside six generic MCP platform tools, creating a confusing mix. An agent could easily misselect a platform tool when the intent is sanctions checking, and the marketplace tool's broad multi-purpose nature adds further ambiguity.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: 'ofac_consultar' is Portuguese snake_case, while the others are English and use varied forms (single verbs like 'connect', noun-based like 'toolkit_info', and verb_noun like 'report_bug'). There is no unifying pattern that reflects a coherent server purpose.
Seven tools is a reasonable count in general, but for an OFAC sanctions server the count is inappropriate: six of the seven are generic MCP platform utilities, leaving only one actual sanctions-related tool. The tool surface is cluttered with irrelevant functionality rather than being scoped to the server's stated purpose.
The OFAC domain is severely incomplete: only one tool (ofac_consultar) addresses sanctions, with no support for other common operations like batch checks, list selection, or detailed record retrieval. The remaining tools cover a different domain entirely (MCP platform management), leaving the intended purpose almost entirely unserved.