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, and the description reinforces a non-destructive read operation. It adds behavioral details about the return shape under different conditions. No annotation contradiction exists.
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, no filler. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives conditional behavior. Highly efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool has no parametersching and good annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description thoroughly explains both the success and failure states of the return. It doesn't need to explain return values further since it covers both scenarios. It's complete for this simple tool.
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?
There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so the description doesn't need to explain params. It instead explains the return values, which is the key semantic information. The baseline of 4 applies since schema covers all parameters.
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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific response examples (authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing). This fully explains the tool's purpose with concrete details.
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?
While no explicit 'when to use' is stated, the description implies usage for checking connection status and provides behavioral expectations (e.g., what happens when providers are connected or when credentials are missing). This is sufficient for a status-check tool with no prerequisites or alternatives.
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 marketplace tool bundles many distinct actions (search, invoke, install, subscribe, etc.) into a single tool, creating high ambiguity. connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, while authenticate and connect both relate to credentials. Only sintegra_ce_consultar is clearly distinct.
Tool names mix verb-based (authenticate, connect, report_bug) with noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info) conventions, and include a Portuguese-only name (sintegra_ce_consultar) among English names. No consistent verb_noun pattern is evident.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range, but the distribution is uneven: marketplace alone appears to encompass several logical operations. Despite this imbalance, the count is not excessive for the server's apparent scope.
The core SINTEGRA CE consultation is covered by a single tool, but the platform tools are aggregated into the marketplace mega-tool, lacking separate granular operations. Additional features like historical queries or batch lookup for SINTEGRA would improve completeness, but basic consultation is present.