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?
The description discloses the nature of the output (status, URLs, pending list) and implies read-only behavior, consistent with annotations. However, it does not detail error handling or side effects beyond the success/failure cases mentioned.
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 sentences, concise, and to the point, providing necessary information without unnecessary fluff.
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?
The description gives sufficient context about the tool's purpose and output, including specific fields like authenticated and pending, which is adequate given the absence of an output schema.
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 no parameters, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not conflict with any parameter semantics.
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, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking 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 conditional guidance on when the tool is used (when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing), but does not explicitly contrast with 'authenticate' or other 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: auth, connection status, marketplace, feedback, version, query, toolkit state. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both convey connection status, and 'marketplace' is a catch-all for many sub-operations, creating minor overlap.
Names are inconsistent: some are generic verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and sintegra_go_consultar uses Portuguese. There's no uniform verb_noun pattern, though they're all snake_case and readable.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable, though the server seems to bundle platform utilities with a single domain-specific tool, making the scope slightly muddled. Each tool has a distinct function, so it's not overly heavy.
For a SINTEGRA GO server, only one domain tool exists, but the marketplace tool provides broad access to other MCPsWFilling gaps. Platform operations (auth, status, feedback, version, toolkit info) are covered, but the domain surface is thin.