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 false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations by explaining conditional return states and the presence of connect_url and per-install URLs. No contradiction exists.
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 primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds useful information about return states and URL behavior.
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, idempotent status tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the main return scenarios and the meaningful fields returned. It gives enough detail for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.
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 and an empty input schema, so parameter semantics are effectively not applicable. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 opens with 'Returns connection status and URLs,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by focusing on status/URL retrieval rather than authentication actions.
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 provides useful context through conditionals ('When all providers are connected...' and 'When credentials are missing...'), making the tool's behavior clear. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool instead of 'authenticate,' so exclusion guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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 'marketplace' tool is a sprawling multi-purpose tool covering search, install, subscribe, and more, overlapping with 'authenticate', 'connect', 'toolkit_info', and even 'report_bug'. Tools like 'carf_processo_consultar' have a distinct purpose, but several others (connect, toolkit_info, marketplace) blur boundaries around status/management.
Naming is inconsistent: 'carf_processo_consultar' is a verb_noun in Portuguese, while others are plain English verbs like 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug'. There is no clear pattern; some are functions, some are nouns, and one mixes domain-specific naming.
The tool count is 7, which is within the recommended rangecase; however, the 'marketplace' tool is overloaded and should likely be split, making the count feel artificial. Still, 7 tools is reasonable for the server's advertised breadth.
For a server named 'CARF: Processo' centered on consulting Brazilian official sources, we only see one domain operation ('carf_processo_consultar'). The rest are platform management utilities unrelated to CARF. There are no obvious lifecycle operations (e.g., list, export, status) for the core domain, making the surface severely incomplete.