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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema by describing the two possible response states: authenticated with empty pending[], or missing credentials with connect_url returned.
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 long and front-loads the core function. Every sentence adds meaningful information about the operation and conditional outcomes, with no redundant filler.
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 zero-parameter status-checking tool, the description covers both primary scenarios and mentions key return fields. It is complete enough given the simple context, though it could briefly mention sibling tools like 'authenticate' for clearer workflow guidance.
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 schema is fully documented by default. The description adds relevant context about what the result will contain, compensating for the lack of an output schema.
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 conveys the core purpose and differentiates from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status reporting 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 this tool is used to check connection status and retrieve connect URLs, especially when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'authenticate' or when not to use it.
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 has a distinct core purpose: auth, connection status, the ECAC query, the marketplace, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. However, there's some overlap between `connect` and `toolkit_info` (both surface connection state), and `marketplace` is a multifunction blob that also covers billing, prompts, and other capabilities an agent might expect as separate tools.
Most tools follow a clean lowercase verb_noun pattern (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), but `ecac_perdcomp_consultar` breaks the pattern entirely—it's snake_case but in Portuguese and uses a different verb ordering. This naming mixes languages, making the set feel inconsistent even though the convention itself (utterances separated by underscores) holds.
With 7 tools, the server falls comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range. The count feels right for a platform bootstrapping an ECAC integration: one domain-specific tool plus six infrastructure/meta tools. No tool feels redundant enough to cut, though the market place tool could arguably be split.
For a read-only tax query service, the single `ecac_perdcomp_consultar` tool covers the core use case. However, there's no history, balance/credit check, or query status tool exposed at the top level, and the marketplace's generic dispatch is too broad to guarantee discovery of what the platform can really do.