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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral detail about the response structure (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs. connect_url) but does not disclose potential side effects or rate limits, which is acceptable given the annotations.
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 every sentence adds value by explaining the two possible response states. No wasted words.
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 clear annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the key output variations (authenticated vs. connect_url) and mentions per-install URLs, which is sufficient for a status-check 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output behavior instead.
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, and explains the two possible states (all connected vs. missing credentials). It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate and toolkit_info by focusing on status/URLs rather than actions or info.
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 or get connect URLs when credentials are missing) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides context but lacks explicit exclusions.
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 clear, distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery, bug reporting, version info, and a SINTEGRA query. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' overlap in reporting connection status and installed MCPs, which could cause an agent to select the wrong one.
Tool names mix conventions: verb-led names (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) coexist with noun-led names (marketplace, toolkit_info) and an irregular domain-specific name (sintegra_suframa_consultar). The pattern is not consistent, though still readable.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable for a platform management server. However, the server is named after SINTEGRA/SUFRAMA while only one tool actually addresses that domain, making the scope feel somewhat mismatched. Still, the overall count is well within typical bounds.
The platform side covers authentication, connectivity, marketplace operations, bug reporting, and version checks. The SINTEGRA/SUFRAMA side has a single consulta tool, which may be sufficient, but lacks features like balance checking or data source metadata. Overall, the core workflows are covered with only minor gaps.