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 indicate readOnly and idempotent hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: it specifies return values ('authenticated:true', empty pending[], connect URLs) and conditional behavior based on credential presence, going beyond the annotation baseline.
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. Every sentence adds meaningful detail—conditional output states and URL info—without any redundancy or fluff.
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 tool with no params and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return scenarios (all connected and missing credentials). However, it omits intermediate states where some providers are connected, which could be relevant for full completeness.
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, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). With 0 params, baseline is 4; the description adds no param-specific info but does not need to, making the score appropriate.
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, using the specific verb 'returns' with a resource ('connection status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication.
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 for checking connection status and explains behavior under certain conditions (all connected vs. missing credentials), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'authenticate', nor does it offer when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct function: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and the CEIS lookup. There is minimal overlap, and descriptions are clear enough to prevent misselection.
Tool names follow inconsistent patterns: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a Portuguese noun-verb combination (ceis_consultar). This mixed convention and language creates a lack of predictable naming.
The count of 7 tools is within the typical range, but the server is named after a specific domain (CEIS) and only one tool relates to it. The other six are generic platform tools, making the scope feel unfocused and the count somewhat inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
For the CEIS domain, a single lookup tool covers the likely need (query registrant status). However, the server also includes unrelated platform management tools, and there are no other CEIS-related operations (e.g., history, details, bulk checks), so the surface is thin and not fully developed for the stated domain.