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 destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining the two possible response shapes: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url with per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This clarifies the tool's output logic beyond 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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently adds the key behavioral distinctions. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without waste or 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 parameterless tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers both primary states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and explains what the response includes. There are no gaps in understanding when or how to invoke the tool.
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 100% since there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on the output behavior rather than parameter explanation.
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, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes between the fully-connected state and the missing-credentials state, making it unambiguous. This differentiates it from siblings like 'authenticate', which initiates an action rather than reporting status.
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 usage for checking connection status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. It describes behavioral outcomes based on connection state, but does not include direct guidance on when to call it or what to do after seeing the results. The context is somewhat evident but not fully explicit.
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, protocol consultation, marketplace access, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. No two tools appear to do the same thing, though connect and toolkit_info both report connection-related information.
Names mix lowercase verbs (authenticate, connect), underscore-separated verbs (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long snake_case domain-specific name (jucesp_redesim_protocolo_consultar). The conventions are inconsistent and do not follow a single pattern.
7 tools is a reasonable count for a platform server that includes both domain-specific functionality and administrative utilities. It is within the typical 3-15 range, though the presence of generic marketplace and utility tools alongside a single domain tool makes the scope slightly mixed.
The server's stated domain is JUCESP REDESIM protocol tracking, but it offers only one consultation tool (jucesp_redesim_protocolo_consultar) with no list, update, or cancel operations. The remaining tools are platform-level utilities, so the domain-specific surface is severely limited for a dedicated server.