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 cover safety with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: it reveals the return shape (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs) under different conditions, going 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?
The description is concise: two sentences that lead with the core purpose and then elaborate on conditional outputs. Every sentence adds value, 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?
The description covers the main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and return values, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter read-only tool. However, it omits the partial-connection case (some providers connected), leaving some ambiguity. Given the tool's simplicity and supportive annotations, it's largely 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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description appropriately focuses on output behavior rather than parameter details since none exist.
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 outputs. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, it's evident this is a status-check tool distinct from 'authenticate'.
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?
Usage is implied but not explicitly stated. The description explains what happens in different scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) but doesn't say when to use this tool over siblings 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.
Multiple platform utility tools overlap: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all deal with connection/auth state, while marketplace bundles search, invoke, install, billing, and prompt library functions into one tool. The only domain-specific tool, bpc_consultar, is clearly distinct but the rest have blurred boundaries.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses an underscore-prefixed convention (bpc_consultar). Mixed styles make it hard to predict tool names.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server is ostensibly for BPC consultation, and only one tool addresses that domain. The rest are generic platform utilities that seem bolted on, making the set feel bloated for the stated purpose and under-delivering on the core domain.
For a BPC server, the surface is severely incomplete: only one consult operation exists, with no support for other related actions. The platform utility tools don't fill this gap; they serve a different purpose entirely, leaving the BPC workflow with a dead end.