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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains the two possible return scenarios, including authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url URLs when credentials are missing. It does not contradict 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 tight sentences with the key purpose first. It uses no filler and every sentence adds information about return behavior.
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 tool is simple, has no parameters, no output schema, and safe/read-only annotations. The description covers both main states and names the key response fields. It is complete enough for an agent to know what connectivity check results to expect, though it could mention whether the result is a single object or contain possible provider names.
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 schema already covers everything. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline of 4 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 states a specific action ('Returns connection status and URLs') and clearly identifies the resource: connection/authentication status for the toolkit and installs. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like authenticate and advbox_* by describing a read-only status-check behavior rather than a mutation or listing operation.
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 clearly implies this tool is for checking whether all providers are connected and for retrieving connect URLs when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use connect versus authenticate or other sibling tools, nor does it provide 'use this instead of X' 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 advbox_* tools are clearly distinct by resource (customer, lawsuit, transaction, post, movement) and action (create, get, list, update). Overlapping tools like lawsuit_history, lawsuit_movements, and last_movements have clear scoping in descriptions. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) are separate and well-defined.
The advbox_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_customer, get_lawsuit, list_transactions). The non-advbox tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) use different naming but are auxiliary and have clear names. Minor deviation but overall predictable.
With 26 tools, the set is on the heavy side, but the legal practice domain is broad, covering customers, lawsuits, transactions, posts, and movements, plus platform management tools. Each tool has a defined role, though some could be consolidated (e.g., the multiple movement-related list tools).
Core workflows for customers, lawsuits, and transactions are covered with create/get/list/update, but there are missing operations: no update_customer, no deletes for any resource, no get_post or update_post despite list and create. The settings tool helps discover IDs, but the lifecycle is incomplete.