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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful conditional behavior about the response shape, including authenticated, pending[], and connect_url fields. It does not explain what 'pending' contains or partial-connection behavior, but annotations lower the bar.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the key conditional outcomes. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description covers the main purpose, return values, and important conditional states. The only notable gap is the lack of detail about partial-connection states and the meaning of 'pending', but this is not a serious omission given the tool's simplicity and annotations.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.
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 identifies the tool as a connection-status query returning URLs and authentication state. It is implicitly distinct from the sibling 'authenticate' tool, but it does not explicitly name the alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 gives clear context for when the tool is useful: checking whether providers are connected and retrieving connect_url when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool, but the conditions are clear enough for a zero-parameter status endpoint.
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 twelve busca_google_* tools are each tied to a distinct Google vertical, so selecting the right one for a search task is usually straightforward. The only real ambiguity is between busca_google_lugares and busca_google_mapas, and between authenticate/connect, but the descriptions do clarify their different use cases.
The core search tools follow a highly consistent busca_google_<category> snake_case pattern in Portuguese. However, the six platform-management tools use generic English names like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info, creating a mixed convention across the set.
At 18 tools, the server is in the borderline-heavy range. The 12 search tools are individually justified, but the inclusion of 6 unrelated platform/metadata tools makes the overall count feel inflated for a server titled 'Buscador Google'.
The search surface is impressively broad: web, news, images, videos, shopping, academic, patents, places, maps, reviews, suggestions, and page reading are all covered. Minor niche Google surfaces like Trends or Books are absent, but core search workflows have no dead ends.