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?
Despite annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already indicating safety, the description adds valuable conditional response details (authenticated:true vs connect_url) that the annotations don't cover. This enhances transparency about dynamic behavior.
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. The first states the primary purpose, the second explains conditional outputs. No filler or redundant 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?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this description fully explains expected responses. No output schema is provided, but the description covers key return fields and edge cases, making it complete for its simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline 4 applies as there is no additional parameter information needed.
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?
Clearly states it returns connection status and URLs, with specific response variations. Distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'show_version' by focusing on connection diagnostics.
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?
Implies when to use (to check connection status/URLs) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Context is clear from the conditional behavior described.
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 clearly distinct purposes, but `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection/status information, and `authenticate` overlaps with `connect` around credentials, creating potential user confusion.
Tool names are inconsistent in pattern: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), and snake_case compounds with differing grammatical structures (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, ecrvsp_docs_opcoes_placa_consultar). There is no uniform verb_noun or consistent naming style.
The 7-tool count is within the typical acceptable range, but the server's stated domain (ECRVSP plate options) is served by only one tool, while the other six are generic platform utilities, making the set feel overpopulated with unrelated functionality.
The core domain exposes only a single consult operation (ecrvsp_docs_opcoes_placa_consultar) with no listing, status, or history operations, leaving notable gaps for any workflow beyond a basic query. Platform tools are more complete, but the domain surface is thin.