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=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about output formats (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs. connect_url) and the conditional nature of results, enriching beyond the annotations 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then detailing output behavior. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema info. It is well-structured for quick scanning.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it returns, under what conditions, and the exact fields. The low complexity means no further elaboration is required, and the description is complete for its purpose.
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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter explanation is needed, and the description doesn't attempt to add unnecessary detail.
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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the exact output conditions (authenticated:true when all connected, connect_url when missing) and distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status retrieval rather than authentication actions.
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 provides context on output variations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it's for checking connection status, but no direct comparisons or exclusions are given. Sibling tools like authenticate are present, but no guidance on choosing between them.
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 set mixes one domain-specific tool with several overlapping platform utilities. marketplace duplicates report_bug, while connect, authenticate, and toolkit_info all touch connection/auth status, making it unclear which tool an agent should call first.
Names are readable and all lowercase snake_case, but they do not follow one pattern: authenticate and connect are bare verbs, marketplace and toolkit_info are nouns, and removebg_remove is a brand-style imperative. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
Seven tools is a reasonable raw count, but the server's scope is unfocused: only one tool actually performs the 'Remover Fundo' domain work, while the rest are platform meta-tools, and marketplace alone bundles many subactions. It is slightly more than needed for the stated purpose.
The core background-removal flow works for URL-hosted images with basic options, but the server lacks local-file input, batch processing, richer output controls, and a clear remove.bg-specific configuration surface. The platform side is fairly complete, but the domain side has notable gaps.