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 and idempotent behavior; the description adds value by detailing response shapes in different states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url for toolkit/install), which goes beyond the safety hints.
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, front-loaded with the core function, and each sentence provides distinct scenario information without redundancy.
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 tool, the description covers the two main outcomes and the expected return fields. Minor gaps like explaining 'pending' or next steps are acceptable but could improve completeness.
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 schema coverage is complete. The description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter details, and the 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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' with a defined resource ('connection status and URLs'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'show_version' by describing its exact output conditions.
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 connectivity status by describing conditional outcomes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusionary 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace exploration, bug reporting, version display, toolkit state, and the specific aid consultation. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming is inconsistent: most tools are English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), while one is a Portuguese snake_case noun (auxilio_reconstrucao_consultar). The pattern mixes languages, verb/noun forms, and capitalization styles.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a platform that combines generic MCP management with a single domain-specific query. It is within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool earns its place.
The platform side is comprehensive (auth, status, marketplace, feedback, version, toolkit info), but the domain-specific side has only one operation for the Auxílio Reconstrução. The marketplace tool mitigates this by allowing on-demand invocation of other MCPs, so major gaps are not present.