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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the conditional response fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url), increasing transparency about the tool's behavior beyond what annotations provide.
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 concise sentences deliver the essential information without redundancy. The main verb and resource appear immediately, and conditional details are logically organized.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the two primary states (all connected vs. missing credentials). Minor ambiguity about partial connectivity remains, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 accepts zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly focuses on the output behavior. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.
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, with specific conditional behavior for all-connected versus missing-credential scenarios. This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, which likely performs authentication rather than checking status.
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 use for checking connection status but does not explicitly contrast with authenticate or other sibling tools. It provides context through conditional outcomes but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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 set mixes a single domain-specific tool (acordos_leniencia_consultar) with several generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). While most platform tools have distinct purposes, connect and toolkit_info both report status, and marketplace's broad meta-capabilities overlap with the dedicated tools, creating boundary confusion.
Tool names use inconsistent conventions: Portuguese snake_case (acordos_leniencia_consultar) alongside English single words and compound names (authenticate, report_bug, toolkit_info). There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, and the language switch adds inconsistency.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the scope is mismatched: the server name implies a leniency-agreement domain, yet six of seven tools are generic MCP platform utilities. This makes the tool set feel bloated with unrelated functionality or severely underpopulated with domain-specific tools.
The only domain-relevant tool is acordos_leniencia_consultar, a single query operation. There are no other read or write operations for leniency agreements (e.g., listing, filtering, detailed views), making the surface severely incomplete for the stated domain.