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 and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds behavioral detail about the state-dependent response: when all providers are connected it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], and when credentials are missing it returns connect_url. This is useful context 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence provides meaningful behavioral details without wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.
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 is complete. It explains the return values for both success and failure states, and no output schema is needed given the simplicity. The annotations further cover safety and idempotency, so nothing important is missing.
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 description need not explain any. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for anything, so a 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', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication, and the credentials-missing behavior adds further specificity.
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 it: when you need to check connection status or obtain connection URLs. It clearly explains the two possible outcomes (all connected vs. missing credentials), giving context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, Garantia Safra query, marketplace, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit info. Minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info, but they are still distinguishable.
Naming is inconsistent: most tools use English lowercase with underscores (authenticate, connect, report_bug), but one uses Portuguese (garantia_safra_consultar), and compound names vary (toolkit_info vs show_version). The mixed language and naming styles break any clear pattern.
Seven tools is within the typical range, but the server's purpose is muddled. Only one tool is domain-specific (Garantia Safra consultation), while the rest are generic platform utilities (marketplace, auth, reporting), making the count feel padded and unfocused.
For a server named Garantia Safra, only a single consult operation is provided, lacking any other domain-relevant actions. The remaining tools are about platform management rather than the domain, leaving obvious gaps if an agent expects to manage Garantia Safra data beyond a simple lookup.