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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral detail by explaining the different response based on connection state, but does not cover error conditions, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.
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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and varying outputs without fluff.
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 description adequately explains the main return values (authenticated flag, pending array, connect URLs) for the primary scenarios. Though it lacks an explicit output schema or error handling details, for a simple status-checking tool it is sufficiently complete.
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 no parameters, so schema coverage is complete (100%). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is appropriate.
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, specifying the resource (connection status). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like authenticate, but its purpose is unambiguous and distinct enough.
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 for checking connection status by describing two scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), but it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., authenticate) or when not to use it.
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.
The World Cup tools (worldcup_bracket, worldcup_groups, worldcup_matches, etc.) are clearly distinct with specific usage examples. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are also distinct, though connect and toolkit_info have some overlap in reporting connection status. Overall, agents should select the correct tool with minimal ambiguity.
The eight World Cup tools follow a consistent 'worldcup_<noun>' pattern, but the six platform tools use mixed conventions: verbs (authenticate, connect), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version). This inconsistency across the two groups hurts overall coherence, even though each group is internally consistent.
With 14 tools, the count is within the recommended range. It covers both the platform management surface (6 tools) and the World Cup data domain (8 tools). The number feels justified for the server's dual purpose, though it could be seen as slightly heavy for a single focused use case.
The World Cup tools provide comprehensive coverage: teams, groups, matches, results, schedule, standings, bracket, and venues—no obvious gaps for a tournament information server. The platform tools cover auth, connection, marketplace, version, bug reporting, and toolkit state, which is complete for their purpose. Minor missing features like player stats or news are not essential.