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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with a status check. The description adds context about different states (authenticated:true vs pending[] and connect_url), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose any rate limits, permission requirements, or return format details beyond what's given. Since annotations cover safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 purpose, and then elaborates on two possible states. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition. Excellent conciseness.
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 parameters, no output schema, simple status output), the description is mostly complete. It covers the main output fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and their meaning. However, could mention that the per-install URLs are returned in case of missing credentials, which is already implied. Slight gap: doesn't explicitly state what 'all providers' includes or whether partial connection states exist beyond the two examples. But for a status tool, this is adequate.
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 there is no parameter burden on the description. The description focuses on return behavior which is the only meaningful semantic content. With no parameters, the description effectively communicates what the tool outputs, which is more relevant than parameter details. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools.
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 specific details about authenticated state and pending array. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status retrieval rather than authentication actions (authenticate) or other informational tools (show_version, toolkit_info). Slight deduction for not explicitly contrasting with siblings, but purpose is explicit and actionable.
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, and by listing typical scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials) it guides when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention cases where other tools might be preferred, such as when needing to initiate auth (authenticate) or view version info. It provides clear context but lacks explicit 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.
The server mixes platform-management tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) with one domain-specific tool (mpt_mt_cnf_consultar). The platform tools have overlapping purposes: authenticate and connect both deal with credentials/connection status, while marketplace and toolkit_info both provide current state and capability discovery. An agent could confuse which tool to call for a connection vs. catalog search vs. status query.
Naming is inconsistent: generic English verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) mix with a Portuguese snake_case domain tool (mpt_mt_cnf_consultar). The platform tools are mostly single-word/verb-style, but marketplace is a noun and toolkit_info is hyphenated, lacking a consistent verb_noun pattern.
7 tools is a reasonable count, but most are meta/platform utilities (authentication, marketplace, version, status) surrounding a single business tool. This feels like a platform wrapper with a demo MCP rather than a focused server; the business functionality is underweighted relative to the maintenance tooling.
The only domain action is a simple consultation (mpt_mt_cnf_consultar) that returns a certificate; there is no follow-up tool for history, validation, cancellation, or detailed lookup. The non-domain tools cover platform operations but the core service lacks depth, so an agent can only query and is otherwise at a dead end.