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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable context on response details (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url) and conditional behavior, which goes beyond the structured fields. No contradiction.
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-loads the core function, and provides concise conditional details. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description fully explains return values for both scenarios: all providers connected and credentials missing. It is complete for the agent to understand what will happen.
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 fully covered and the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't introduce any ambiguity.
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 a specific verb and resource. It also outlines the two possible output states (authenticated with empty pending[] vs. credentials missing with connect_url), making the purpose unmistakable even among sibling tools.
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 the tool is for checking connection status and provides conditional behavior based on whether credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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, which could cause confusion. The other tools (authenticate, marketplace, identidade_ar_consultar, report_bug, show_version) are well-separated.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and one is a Portuguese compound (identidade_ar_consultar). While all use snake_case, the grammatical pattern varies significantly.
7 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool earns its place, covering platform management, identity verification, pricing, and support, without excessive overlap or bloat.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of the server's apparent scope: authentication, connection status, identity checking, marketplace search and invocation, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations.