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. The description adds behavioral context about the conditional return values (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url when credentials are missing), going beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the key behavior is front-loaded. Every sentence adds information.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully covers the return behavior for both relevant states. The tool's simplicity means this is complete.
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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist.
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 possible outputs (authenticated vs credentials missing). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate (which likely initiates auth) and show_version/toolkit_info (which return other metadata).
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 use when checking whether all providers are connected and for retrieving connection URLs. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple status tool.
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 have clear, distinct purposes (authenticate, cvm_consultar, show_version), but connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, and marketplace is a catch-all with many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe, etc.) that could be confused with separate tools like report_bug. Descriptions help, but boundaries are not always crisp.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses snake_case with a Portuguese verb (cvm_consultar). Mixed conventions and unclear verb/noun styles make the set feel inconsistent.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable and not bloated. However, marketplace is an extremely large tool packing many capabilities, effectively expanding the surface. Still, the overall number is appropriate for a platform server that mixes marketplace functionality with a single domain query.
The server covers authentication, connection status, marketplace search/run/install/billing, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit logout or account/profile management), but for its apparent purpose, the surface is largely complete and workable.