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 specific behavioral detail about the response structure (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) in different states, which is useful beyond the annotation safety profile.
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 purpose, and every word adds value. It efficiently conveys the two main outcome states without redundancy.
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 query tool with no output schema, the description explains the return values in the key scenarios. It could mention partial connection states or details about pending[] but is largely complete for an agent to understand what to expect.
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 schema provides no parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description does not need to add parameter details, and none are needed.
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, with specific conditions (all providers connected vs credentials missing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which is about performing authentication, not checking its status.
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 clear context on when to expect different outcomes (e.g., when credentials are missing, returns connect_url), implying it should be used to check onboarding status and obtain URLs for completing authentication. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the conditions make usage context clear.
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 tools are mostly distinct: compliance_apostas_consultar is the only domain-specific operation, while the rest serve platform management (auth, connectivity, marketplace, feedback, version, toolkit state). However, `connect`, `marketplace`, and `toolkit_info` overlap in providing status and access information, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong one for simple state checks.
Naming is inconsistent: `authenticate`, `connect`, `report_bug`, and `show_version` are imperative verbs, while `marketplace` and `toolkit_info` are nouns, and `compliance_apostas_consultar` mixes Portuguese with a verb-at-end structure. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, and the mix of languages and formats reduces predictability.
Seven tools is within the typical 3–15 range, but the server's stated purpose ('Compliance de Apostas') suggests a domain-specific toolset, yet only one tool actually serves that domain. The rest are generic MCP platform utilities, making the count feel padded or misaligned with the server's name.
For a betting compliance server, the surface is severely incomplete: only a single CPF query tool exists, with no support for batch checks, reports, or other compliance workflows. If the server is intended as a platform management toolkit, it is more complete, but the name and primary domain tool suggest a different focus.