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=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying distinct output scenarios (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), which helps the agent understand the tool's conditional behavior beyond the annotation safety profile.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and no redundant wording. Every clause adds useful information without being verbose.
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 the two possible response states. It is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and what results to expect.
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 baseline is 4. There is no parameter information needed in the description, and the schema declares an empty properties object, so no additional param semantics are required.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status reporting rather than initiating connections.
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 provides clear context on what to expect in different states (connected vs. missing credentials), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'authenticate' implies a contrast, but the description doesn't name it or provide exclusions.
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 clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, Interpol data lookup, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit state. There is no meaningful overlap that would confuse an agent.
Tool naming is inconsistent: some are single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace), some are snake_case verb_noun compounds (report_bug, show_version), and one is a non-English prefixed verb (interpol_consultar). This mixed style makes the naming pattern unpredictable.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the set is split between Interpol-specific functionality and generic MCP platform management, making the server's scope feel somewhat unfocused. Still, the count itself is not excessive.
The platform management side is fairly covered (auth, connection, toolkit info, marketplace, bug reporting), but the Interpol-specific side consists of only one tool, leaving no options for broader Interpol data queries or follow-up operations. This makes the server feel incomplete relative to its name.