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, indicating a safe, non-destructive read. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying exact return values for different states (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url) beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary function, and the second sentence adds conditional behavior. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff.
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?
The description covers the main success and failure states, but it only addresses 'all connected' vs. 'credentials missing,' leaving partial connection states ambiguous. Despite this, with no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete for a simple read-only tool.
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 input schema defines zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly says nothing about parameters, and nothing more is needed. It does not attempt to add irrelevant parameter detail.
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 uses the specific verb 'returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('connection status and URLs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' which initiates connections. The two-state behavior further clarifies the tool's purpose.
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 clarifies when to use the tool by showing what it returns in different connection states (all connected vs. missing credentials), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when NOT to use it. This provides clear usage context without direct sibling comparison.
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 core enrichment tool is distinct, but there is overlap among the platform tools: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and authenticate is also related to connection setup. An agent could confuse which tool to use for checking connectivity or managing credentials.
Tool names are inconsistent in style: single verbs (authenticate, connect), a Portuguese noun-verb phrase (enriquecimento_lead_consultar), generic nouns (marketplace), and verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version). There is no predictable convention across the set.
Seven tools is within a reasonable count range, but the set mixes one domain-specific tool with several generic platform management tools, making the overall scope feel unbalanced. The count itself is appropriate, though not perfectly scoped.
The lead enrichment domain is severely under-covered: only one tool (enriquecimento_lead_consultar) performs enrichment, with no support for other identifier types, batch operations, or lead lifecycle management. The platform tools are generic and do not address the server's stated purpose.