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, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: return fields under different conditions (authenticated vs. missing credentials) and the presence of pending[] and connect_url. It does not mention any side effects or rate limits, but none are expected for a read-only status tool.
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 extremely concise: two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second clarifies conditional behavior. There is 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?
For a simple status tool with no params and no output schema, the description covers the main scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) and indicates the shape of the response. However, it does not explicitly describe partial connectivity states or the exact format of URLs, but these are not essential for correct invocation.
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 and schema describes an empty object, so there is no parameter information to add. The baseline is 4 for a parameterless tool, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than invoking 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 clearly states that the tool returns connection status and URLs, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('connection status'). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than action, and provides scenario-specific behavior.
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 the tool: to check the current connection state and obtain URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide without ambiguity.
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 purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace, feedback, version, and toolkit info. The only slight overlap is between authenticate and connect, but they serve different functions (login vs. status). The domain-specific consultation tool is unambiguous.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses a long snake_case Portuguese phrase (tribunal_trf3_processo_consultar). This mixed style reduces predictability.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a management toolkit. The set is not bloated, though the inclusion of a single domain-specific tool alongside generic platform utilities makes the overall scope feel slightly unfocused.
For platform management, the tools cover authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, version checks, toolkit state, and bug reporting. This is fairly comprehensive. However, for the apparent tribunal process domain, only one consultation tool exists, indicating a significant gap if that were the intended focus.