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 read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable conditional behavior: what occurs when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing, including specific return fields like authenticated and connect_url. This exceeds the annotations' minimal safety hints.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then concise conditional details. Every sentence is informative and no redundancy exists.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description fully covers expected behavior across states. No output schema exists, but the description explains the key return values. Sibling tools are not needed for context.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters. It adds context about the meaning of output fields, which is useful given the lack of an output 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 function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than action.
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 implies usage for checking provider connectivity, with clear context about what results to expect. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the read-only status-check purpose is evident.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' overlap in reporting connection status, and 'authenticate' deals with auth similar to 'connect' and 'marketplace' invoke's connect links. 'show_version' is trivial but distinct. The main 'marketplace' tool is a megatool covering many sub-actions, blurring boundaries with 'report_bug' and 'toolkit_info'.
Naming is inconsistent: 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'show_version' are mostly verb_noun but vary in verb style (some are bare verbs, some noun_verb). 'sintegra_ac_consultar' is Portuguese and does not follow the English pattern, and 'toolkit_info' is noun_verb. Mixed languages and conventions make patterns unpredictable.
7 tools is a reasonable count, but 'marketplace' is an overloaded mega-tool that should arguably be split into multiple tools (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.), making the surface feel heavier than the count suggests. The other tools are sparse, with 'show_version' being near-trivial.
The server mixes platform management, marketplace access, and a single domain-specific query tool (sintegra_ac_consultar). The domain of Brazilian tax information appears incomplete: only one query capability, no history, no credits balance, no CNPJ/CPF variations. Platform side lacks explicit auth revocation or billing details beyond marketplace. Significant gaps for a coherent workflow.