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 fully aligns with the readOnly and idempotent annotations. It explains behavior in both states, including the fact that it returns URLs when credentials are missing. Since it's a read-only operation, no side effects are mentioned, which is correct.
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 concise, front-loaded sentences. It immediately states the main function and then gives specific details for the two states. No filler or redundancy.
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 parameters, no output schema, and only two possible states, the description covers all essential information. It explains the return format (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and the conditions for each, making it complete for practical use.
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 zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain them. The tool's behavior is fully described without parameter context, which is appropriate. Baseline of 4 is exceeded because the output details are clearly specified.
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 returns connection status and URLs, specifying the exact return values (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) in different states. It immediately communicates the purpose and output.
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 when to use it (to check connection status) and mentions the two key scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials). It doesn't explicitly say 'use it to verify connection' but the purpose is evident. It also indirectly contrasts with siblings like 'authenticate'.
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 purpose of each tool is not clearly distinct: 'authenticate', 'connect', and 'marketplace' all deal with connection/authentication aspects, and 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' both involve token/credential handling. 'marketplace' also includes a prompt library, blurring boundaries with a hypothetical prompt tool, and 'connect' overlaps with 'toolkit_info' in reporting connection status. This creates high ambiguity for an agent selecting the right tool.
Most tool names are verbs in imperative form (authenticate, connect, show_version, report_bug), but there is a mix: 'marketplace' is a noun, 'toolkit_info' uses a noun+noun structure, and 'sintegra_ro_consultar' breaks the English pattern with Portuguese. While many follow a simple verb, the lack of a consistent verb_noun pattern and the Portuguese exception reduce consistency.
With 7 tools, the count is within the typical recommended range and each tool appears to serve a distinct functional area (auth, connectivity, catalog, feedback, version, a domain-specific query, and toolkit info). However, some tools have overlapping responsibilities, making the count feel slightly bloated; a more consolidated design could reduce it without major loss.
The server appears to focus on a Brazilian tax query (SINTEGRA RO) but only has a single query tool, lacking operations for managing query history, reporting results, or handling errors in a structured way. The platform-level tools are generic but cover market/installation, yet there is no explicit tool for managing credentials beyond 'authenticate' and 'connect', which may leave gaps for full lifecycle management.