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?
The description adds concrete behavioral details beyond the read-only annotation, such as the exact return conditions (authenticated:true vs. connect_url for missing credentials). This is useful additional context not present in annotations.
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 with no redundant wording. It is well-structured, presenting the normal case and the edge case clearly.
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 status check tool, the description covers the essential outcomes sufficiently. It does not detail the URL structure or exact response format, but given no output schema and simplicity, it is adequately 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 no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and no additional meaning is added beyond the empty schema.
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 it returns connection status and URLs, and explains the two possible outcomes. It distinguishes itself by focusing on status checking, which is distinct from other tools like authentication or CAPTCHA solving.
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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check connection status vs. when to authenticate). It provides no guidance on selection criteria or prerequisites.
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 captcha_solve_* tools are clearly distinct by captcha type, and captcha_get_result is separate. However, authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info overlap in purpose (auth/status), and marketplace bundles a huge range of unrelated functionality, creating ambiguity about which tool to use for platform management.
The captcha tools follow a consistent captcha_solve_<type> pattern, but the rest of the set uses bare verbs (connect, authenticate, marketplace) or inconsistent forms (toolkit_info, show_version). Mixing prefixed captcha tools with generic platform tools makes the naming scheme disjointed.
At 12 tools the raw count is reasonable, but the server is named 'Captcha Solver' yet includes a large platform/marketplace tool and several generic management tools. The captcha-specific scope is small (7 tools), while the extra tools feel bolted on and dilute the server's purpose.
The captcha solving surface covers main types (image, hCaptcha, reCAPTCHA v2/v3, Turnstile) plus result retrieval, which is decent. However, there is no dedicated balance/credit check or captcha task listing, and the broad marketplace/toolkit functionality makes it unclear what domains the server is supposed to fully cover.