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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the conditional return values (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url and per-install URLs), which goes beyond simple schema info and helps set expectations.
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 concise: first sentence gives the primary purpose, the next two cover the main conditional behaviors. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool is simple with no parameters or output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It covers the two most important scenarios (fully connected and missing credentials), but does not explicitly address partial connection states or error handling. This is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.
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?
With 0 parameters, the description has no parameter semantics to explain. Following the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools, and the description adds no confusion.
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', using a specific verb and resource. It also explains the behavior for two distinct states (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'authenticate' tool that likely initiates a connection.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to check connection status and obtain URLs. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know not to use it for authentication. The sibling 'authenticate' serves as a natural alternative, though not explicitly referenced.
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 are distinct (authenticate, show_version, report_bug), but there is overlap: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace's list_tools overlaps with toolkit_info. The marketplace tool is a broad catch-all covering search, invoke, install, and billing, which could cause misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is domain-specific (sintegra_se_consultar) with a different style. No clear verb_noun pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a platform-level server, though the inclusion of a single domain-specific tool (sintegra_se_consultar) alongside generic platform tools feels disproportionate given the server's name.
The platform surface is fairly complete: authentication, connection status, marketplace with search/invoke/install, feedback, version, and toolkit info. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit credential management beyond authenticate, but marketplace actions cover most needs). For the specific SINTEGRA domain, only one query tool exists, but that may be intentional as this is primarily a platform server.