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 and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the conditional output (authenticated:true vs connect_url) and what each state means, giving agents more behavioral insight 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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the two key output states. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 parameterless status check tool, the description covers the two most likely states (all connected vs missing credentials) and their outputs. It does not address partial connection states, but given the simplicity of the tool and lack of output schema, the information is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is moot. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding extraneous parameter details. It focuses on output semantics instead, which is appropriate.
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 for different states (authenticated:true when all providers connected, connect_url when credentials missing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 for checking connection status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use before authenticate' or 'use to troubleshoot connection issues', so usage context is only implied.
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 set mixes platform utilities (authenticate, connect, show_version), a bug reporter, and one domain-specific Brazilian vehicle-docs query tool (ecrvsp_docs_escolher_placa_consultar). The `marketplace` tool is the worst offender: its description claims it can search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, and handle prompts—an entire parallel application that an agent would have no reason to distinguish from the main server. authenticate/connect also blur around connection state vs. action.
Conventions are mixed: single-word bare verbs (`connect`, `authenticate`), snake_case `verb_noun` (`report_bug`, `show_version`), a noun phrase (`toolkit_info`), and a long Portuguese snake_case string (`ecrvsp_docs_escolher_placa_consultar`). The inconsistent Portuguese/English mix and inconsistent verb-first vs. noun-first patterns make the surface unpredictable.
At 7 tools, the count is right in the sweet spot, and most are generic platform utilities that plausibly need to exist. However, six of the seven are generic infrastructure, leaving only one tool to represent the actual product domain, while `marketplace` crams dozens of capabilities into a single mis-sized tool. The count looks fine numerically but is lopsided in practice.
The domain (ECRVSP plate selection/consultation) has exactly one operation: `consultar` (query). There is no way to save a plate, view historical lookups, retrieve a document/receipt, handle multiple document types, or resolve a failed lookup—so any multi-step workflow hits a dead end immediately. The `marketplace`'s wrapper capabilities don't fill these gaps, and the actual product surface feels like just one CRUD read among many missing operations.