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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing specific return values (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url) and conditional behavior. Minor gap: it does not mention partial connectivity states, but overall it enhances the annotation-provided safety profile.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently conveys both purpose and conditional outcomes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main scenarios: all connected vs. credentials missing. It returns enough information about the response structure. The only omission is partial connectivity, but the description is otherwise complete and appropriate for the tool's complexity.
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 the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description need not add parameter semantics since none exist, and it doesn't attempt to invent any.
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 function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than performing authentication, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 by describing the conditions under which different outputs are returned (all providers connected vs. credentials missing). However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like 'authenticate' or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and authenticate overlaps with connect. The ANTT query tool is clearly separate, but the platform utilities blur together somewhat.
Naming is inconsistent: the ANTT tool uses a long snake_case prefix, while others are single verbs or noun phrases (connect, marketplace, show_version). No clear pattern across the set.
Seven tools are reasonable in number, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated ANTT domain. The single domain tool is buried among meta-tools, making the set feel bloated and off-purpose.
The ANTT consultation tool covers its core lookup well, but only one operation is offered—no related queries (e.g., vehicle, company, or route checks) or additional domain actions. The platform tools are complete in themselves but don't contribute to the domain's completeness.