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 meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the specific return values for two different states: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, and connect_url with per-install URLs when credentials are missing. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. Minor gap: does not address partial connection scenarios in detail.
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 action, and every sentence provides useful information. No redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the essential two-state behavior and key return fields. It could be slightly more explicit about partial connection states, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the low complexity.
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 the input schema has no properties. The description needs to explain no inputs are required, and it does so implicitly by describing only outputs. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics 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 returns connection status and URLs, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication. The conditional details further clarify its purpose.
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 use the tool: to check connection status and retrieve URLs when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the implied usage is evident from the state-based behavior. Lacks explicit exclusion of sibling tools.
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 are distinct, but 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status, creating overlap. The single domain tool is clearly separated from platform utilities.
Names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun in both English (report_bug, show_version) and Portuguese (credito_pj_risco_consultar), plus bare nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). No consistent pattern or language.
The count of 7 is reasonable, but most are generic platform utilities rather than domain-specific tools. The one credit risk tool is the core, making the set feel slightly overburdened with meta-tools.
The core credit risk query is covered, but there are no additional analysis or reporting tools. The marketplace tool mitigates gaps by enabling on-demand tool discovery, but the server's own domain surface is thin.