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 and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the two possible return states: all connected vs missing credentials. This goes beyond the annotations by describing output conditions.
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 two-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and additional details in the second. No wasted words.
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?
As a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key output scenarios (authenticated with empty pending, or connect_url with per-install URLs). The annotations cover safety, so this is complete.
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 is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on return behavior rather than parameter details.
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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than initiating authentication, and the specific conditions (authenticated:true vs connect_url) make it uniquely identifiable.
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 the tool is for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'authenticate.' There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the usage context is implied rather than 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.
The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are each distinct in purpose, and offshore_leaks_consultar is clearly the only data-facing tool. However, the mix of platform utilities with a single domain-specific query could confuse an agent about the server's primary function.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single-word nouns (connect, marketplace), verb_noun snake_case (offshore_leaks_consultar), and camelCase-like compounds (show_version, toolkit_info). This inconsistency makes the tool set feel haphazard.
With 7 tools but only one actually related to Offshore Leaks, the count is highly inappropriate. The server appears to be a generic MCP platform masquerading as an offshore-leaks data source, so the tool count does not match the server's stated purpose.
The offshore-leaks domain is severely underserved: there is only a single query tool (consultar) and no capabilities for retrieving details, listing entities, or any other data operations. The platform tools are irrelevant to the domain, leaving the core functionality almost entirely missing.