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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing return values in different states (all connected vs missing credentials), enhancing transparency 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns and under what conditions. No gaps.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4; the description does not need to add parameter info.
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 it returns connection status and URLs, with distinct behavior for all-connected vs missing credentials. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate.
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 use for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools, the context is sufficient for a simple read-only tool.
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 have significant overlap, with both covering search, describe, and invoke actions for the MCP catalog. connect and toolkit_info also both provide connection/status information, creating ambiguity about which to use for state checks.
Tool names mix verb-only (authenticate, connect), noun-only (marketplace), and verb_noun patterns (report_bug, search_tools, show_version, toolkit_info). There is no consistent convention, making the naming feel chaotic.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a management/marketplace utility. However, the broad marketplace tool bundles many sub-operations that could arguably be split, and the server name 'Olist Tiny ERP' suggests a completely different domain, making the count feel misaligned with expectations.
Within the MCP management domain, the tools cover authentication, connection status, catalog search/execution, version info, and bug reporting. Gaps include no dedicated tool for managing installed MCP configurations or direct access controls beyond what's bundled in marketplace. The server name implies ERP functionality entirely absent, making the surface incomplete for the stated name.