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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying that it returns authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url with per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover partial connection states or error scenarios.
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, immediately states the main purpose, and efficiently explains the two key output states. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or fluff content.
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 status tool, the description covers the primary use cases (all connected, missing credentials) and explains what the return value indicates. However, it does not mention a partial-connection state (some but not all providers connected), which could be an important edge case. The lack of an output schema increases the burden, and the description mostly meets it but not fully.
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 schema is trivially 100% covered. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed; it focuses on output behavior, which is appropriate here.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'), and differentiates itself from sibling 'authenticate' by emphasizing it reports status rather than performing authentication. It also details two specific output conditions, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 when to use the tool (to check connection status) and gives context around the two scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials), but it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of authenticate' or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like 'authenticate' hint at the distinction, but the description itself stops short of explicit guidance.
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: authentication, connection status, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state are all separate concerns. However, `connect` and `toolkit_info` overlap somewhat in reporting connection status, and `marketplace` is a large catch-all that could be confused with a standalone platform tool.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some are single verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), some are verb_noun (`report_bug`, `show_version`), one is a noun (`marketplace`), one is noun_info (`toolkit_info`), and one mixes English with Portuguese (`fbi_most_wanted_consultar`). This inconsistency makes the set feel like a random collection rather than a coherent API.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a general utility server, but the server is named 'FBI Most Wanted' and only one tool is domain-specific. The other six are platform administration tools that do not relate to the stated purpose, making the scope confusing and the count feel inflated for a specialized server.
For the FBI Most Wanted domain, only a single lookup operation is provided, lacking features like listing all wanted persons, retrieving details, or batch searching. The platform utilities cover metadata and lifecycle operations, but there are notable gaps in the domain-specific functionality that would require agents to rely on the generic `marketplace` for deeper coverage.