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 and idempotentHint as true, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by explaining exact response structure (authenticated flag, pending array, connect_url) and the conditions under which each appears. This behavioral detail helps the agent understand output without needing to call, fully satisfying the transparency requirement.
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?
Two sentences, direct and information-dense. The opening sentence states the core function; the second elaborates conditions and return fields. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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, side-effect-free status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers expected behavior and response conditions. The combination of annotations (read-only, idempotent) and clear return logic leaves no meaningful gaps.
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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per rubric, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics as none exist.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It details conditional behaviors (authenticated:true when all connected, connect_url when credentials missing), making the tool's scope and output explicit. Though siblings aren't named, the precision and detail distinguish it as a status endpoint.
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 conditional language ('When all providers are connected', 'When credentials are missing') implies when the tool will return certain results, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'webposto_login_check'. No exclusionary or alternative suggestions are given, leaving usage context to inference.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, authenticate and connect both deal with auth/connection, and marketplace alone covers search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, and bug reporting, duplicating the standalone report_bug. The two webPosto tools are distinct but the broader set blurs boundaries.
The generic platform tools use inconsistent styles: single verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), and noun_underscore (toolkit_info). Only the webPosto tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, login_check), but the prefix and structure differ from the rest. No uniform convention is applied.
8 tools is within a reasonable range and not excessive. However, several are generic platform utilities that overlap, and the marketplace tool is a monolithic catch-all that arguably should be split into multiple focused tools. The count itself is acceptable, though the distribution is imbalanced.
As a server named webPosto, the toolset lacks any actual webPosto operations beyond listing accounts and validating login credentials. There are no tools for creating, reading, updating, or deleting posts, managing content, or performing other core webPosto functions. The marketplace tool can indirectly invoke other MCPs, but the stated domain is severely under-covered.