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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful conditional behavior: 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' versus 'connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs', which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction is present.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler or repetition. Every clause contributes useful behavioral information.
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-argument, read-only, idempotent status tool, the description covers the main states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) and mentions returned URLs. It leaves minor gaps such as partial-connection behavior and exact URL structure, but these are not critical given the simple scope and strong annotations.
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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100% and no parameter-level clarification is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output behavior instead of parameter details.
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 and resource ('Returns connection status and URLs') and clarifies conditional outcomes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'authenticate' tool, but its read-only status-check purpose is unambiguous.
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 when checking connection status and describes expected results in different states. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate', and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
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 roles: authenticate for login, connect for status, marketplace for MCP discovery/invocation, and the rest for ancillary functions. The only minor overlap is between authenticate and connect, but their descriptions make the boundary clear enough.
Tool names are readable but mix conventions: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), snake_case verbs (report_bug, show_version), and a domain-prefixed snake_case (sintegra_rr_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, though each name still conveys its purpose adequately.
Seven tools is a reasonable size for a server that combines platform utilities with a single domain-specific consultation. The count is not bloated, and each utility earns its place in the overall workflow.
The platform lifecycle is well covered: authentication, connection status, marketplace search/describe/invoke/install, bug reporting, and version information. The SINTEGRA RR domain is narrow but sufficient for a one-shot consultation, though missing features like query history or batch operations are a minor gap.