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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about response variations: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. No contradiction with annotations.
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, and every clause adds meaningful detail about conditional behavior. No wasted 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?
For a zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return behavior in both connection states. It covers the main scenarios an agent would encounter and needs no additional 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?
Tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage.
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 resource ('connection status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status 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?
Usage context is implied: this is the tool to check connection status and obtain URLs. It describes conditional behavior based on provider connection state, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as authenticate or toolkit_info.
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.
authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all address authentication/connection state and could easily lead an agent to pick the wrong one. marketplace also contains sub-actions (invoke, report_bug, get_prompt, etc.) that overlap with the dedicated sintegra_ap_consultar and report_bug tools, so boundaries are unclear.
Names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), and a Portuguese reverse-order name (sintegra_ap_consultar), so there is no consistent action-object convention. Only the lowercase snake_case style is uniform.
Seven tools is a manageable number, and the platform utility tools have clear maintenance roles. The scope is slightly awkward though, because six generic meta-tools surround a single SINTEGRA lookup and marketplace bundles many capabilities into one tool.
For a single-source Brazilian official-data lookup, sintegra_ap_consultar may be enough, and marketplace covers install/billing/prompt workflows. However, there are notable gaps around wallet/credit visibility, logout/revocation, and query history, and the domain purpose is diluted by generic platform tooling.