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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful conditional behavior: when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing, including the return of connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify expected states.
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 provides conditional outcomes without any fluff. Every word 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?
The description covers the two main states (all providers connected and credentials missing) but omits intermediate scenarios like partial connectivity. With no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity about the response structure for such cases.
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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to clarify.
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 sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the authentication action itself.
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 as a status check (e.g., when needing to know if providers are connected) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives. The conditional outcomes provide some context, but no direct guidance on choosing between this and 'authenticate'.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. The domain-specific CAF tool stands apart. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status, which could cause minor confusion.
Naming is mixed: platform tools use single words or compound phrases like 'authenticate', 'report_bug', 'show_version', while the domain tool uses a prefixed snake_case pattern 'caf_agricultura_pf_consultar'. 'marketplace' and 'toolkit_info' are nouns rather than verbs, breaking the verb-based pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, neither overwhelming nor too sparse. The platform tools are necessary for the MCP ecosystem integration, and the one domain tool addresses the core consultation need. Still, the server is heavily weighted toward platform utilities rather than CAF-specific functionality.
The CAF domain is covered only with a single consultation tool, which may be sufficient for a simple lookup service but lacks any additional operations like batch queries or result validation. The platform tools are complete for their purposes, so the overall set is functional but has minimal domain depth.