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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context on response behavior under two conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), including the return of authenticated, pending[], and URLs. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies expected output, without 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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds condition-specific details. There is no redundant wording; every sentence contributes meaning.
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?
With no output schema, the description bears the full burden of explaining return values. It covers the all-connected and missing-credentials cases, but omits partial connectivity scenarios (e.g., some providers connected, others missing). It also does not specify the full response structure beyond the mentioned fields. For a simple status tool, this is adequate but leaves a notable gap.
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 takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist, and it appropriately avoids inventing any.
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 does not explicitly contrast with sibling 'authenticate', but the focus on status rather than authentication makes the purpose distinct enough for an agent to differentiate.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. It does not mention prerequisites, typical call contexts, or exclusions. There is no implied usage context beyond the declarative statement of what it returns.
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.
marketplace and search_tools both cover catalog search, describe, and invoke, making their boundaries unclear. connect and toolkit_info also overlap on reporting connection status, so an agent could easily select the wrong tool for the same task.
All names use lowercase snake_case, but the patterns vary: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), and compound nouns (toolkit_info). There is no consistent verb_noun convention, though the names remain reasonably readable.
Seven tools is a reasonable size for an MCP platform-management server, and most tools cover distinct operational areas. However, marketplace and search_tools overlap significantly, so the count could be trimmed without losing functionality.
The set covers authentication, connection status, catalog search and execution, toolkit state, version info, and bug reporting, which supports the core platform workflows. The main weakness is that install/uninstall/billing operations are buried inside the marketplace tool description rather than exposed as first-class tools.