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 behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds meaningful conditional behavior: fully connected returns authenticated:true with empty pending[], while missing credentials produce connect_url and per-install URLs.
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 compact sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and uses conditional phrasing efficiently. Every sentence adds meaningful behavioral detail without unnecessary repetition.
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 simple, read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the two most important states (all connected vs missing credentials). It could clarify what pending[] contains in partial-connection scenarios, but overall it is sufficiently complete for basic invocation and interpretation.
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 schema coverage is effectively complete with an empty properties object. There is no parameter information for the description to add, so the baseline score of 4 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 details about successful and missing-credential states. It is distinct from siblings like authenticate, but does not explicitly position itself as the status-check counterpart to that action.
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 gives concrete scenarios (all connected vs credentials missing), which helps interpret output. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as authenticate, and there is no direct usage guidance or exclusion criteria.
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 flightradar_* tools are clearly distinct from each other, but the server mixes them with generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) that serve different purposes and some overlap (connect vs. authenticate; marketplace vs. toolkit_info). This creates ambiguity about what the server is actually for.
There is a clear pattern for flightradar_* tools (prefix + resource), but the rest are named inconsistently: simple verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version). No single naming convention is applied across the whole set.
Twelve tools is a reasonable number, but the count is inflated by six unrelated platform management tools that don't belong in a flight radar server. The set feels over-scoped for its stated name and under-scoped for a general MCP platform.
The flightradar_* tools cover core needs: aircraft lookup, airport info, nearby traffic, closest aircraft, military and type filters. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no flight tracks or scheduled arrivals), but the domain is well covered. The platform tools are irrelevant to flight radar but complete in themselves.