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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing conditional responses (authenticated:true + empty pending[] vs connect_url for toolkit/per-install), which goes beyond the annotations. This is useful context 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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only essential conditional details. No redundant or irrelevant 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?
For a simple no-parameter status tool, the description covers the two main states (all connected vs missing credentials). However, it does not specify behavior when only some providers are connected, which is a minor gap but not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 the schema covers 100% trivially. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 params, and no additional parameter explanation is needed or provided.
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 explicitly states the tool 'Returns connection status and URLs,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status/URLs rather than performing authentication.
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 clearly implies use when checking connection status or retrieving connection URLs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'authenticate', so it lacks exclusions but provides clear context.
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 clear, distinct purposes (marketplace, obito_consultar, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). The only ambiguity is between authenticate and connect, both of which deal with authentication and connection status, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong one.
Naming styles are inconsistent: some tools use single verbs (authenticate, connect), some use snake_case verb_noun (obito_consultar, report_bug), and others use noun forms (marketplace, toolkit_info) or mixed (show_version). There is also a mix of English and Portuguese, further reducing predictability.
7 tools is a reasonable count, falling within the typical 3-15 range. The count is appropriate, though the server mixes a single domain-specific tool with several platform-level utilities, which makes the scope slightly uneven but not excessive.
The server is named 'Óbito' and the core purpose appears to be death-status consultation via obito_consultar, but the tool surface includes only that one domain operation. There are no supporting tools like query history, batch lookup, or results reporting, so the domain coverage is notably shallow. The platform tools are broad, but they don't compensate for the limited domain-specific functionality.