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 provide safety hints (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable context beyond annotation by explaining conditional outputs (authenticated:true when all providers connected, connect_url when credentials missing). This gives agents a clear model of expected behavior.
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 primary purpose, and each sentence earns its place by describing a distinct behavior. 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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so thoroughly: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. For a simple status tool, this is complete.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema is trivial (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to explain parameters; the baseline of 4 applies because all parameter-related information is already covered by the 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact output (connection status and URLs). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than performing 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?
The description implies usage for checking connection status (e.g., when credentials are missing, it returns connect_url), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'authenticate' or other siblings. No direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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 clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version, data query, and toolkit state. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both provide connection status, and 'authenticate' and 'connect' are related to login, creating some ambiguity.
Tool naming is inconsistent: some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are compound nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a Portuguese verb_noun (sintegra_al_consultar). The mix of languages and styles makes it hard to predict naming patterns.
With 7 tools, the server fits well within the expected scope for a domain-specific server that also includes platform management utilities. Each tool appears to serve a clear need.
The core functionality of querying SINTEGRA AL is covered by one tool, and platform management (auth, connection, version, bug reporting, marketplace) is also present. Minor gaps might include a dedicated tool for managing credits or viewing consultation history, but the existing surface likely covers the main workflows.