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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the specific return shapes (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url and per-install URLs), which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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) and well-structured: first a general statement, then conditional details. Every sentence provides essential information without waste, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simple nature of the tool (0 params, read-only, clear output variations) and strong annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context. It explains both success and failure states, and no output schema exists to require additional return documentation.
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 there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none are needed. It correctly focuses on the no-input nature implicitly.
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, and explains the two different states (all connected vs. missing credentials). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which likely initiates auth) and 'toolkit_info' (general info).
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 by describing output variations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use authenticate to initiate missing connections'). It provides context but no direct usage guidance or exclusions.
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 have mostly distinct purposes, but connect, authenticate, and toolkit_info overlap in connection/status reporting, which could cause confusion. The credit score tool is clearly unique, but the platform utilities blur together.
Naming mixes verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info) and includes Portuguese (credito_score_consultar). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
The server is named 'Score de Crédito' but only one of seven tools relates to credit scoring; the rest are generic platform tools. The count is misaligned with the apparent domain, making the set feel padded with infrastructure utilities.
For a credit score server, the surface is severely incomplete—only a single query operation exists, with no history, analysis, or management features. The platform tools do not compensate for the lack of domain coverage.