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 destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the two response cases (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the URLs returned, which is valuable for an agent to interpret the response. It doesn't cover every edge case but sufficiently discloses behavior 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?
The description is two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the main purpose and provides conditional details efficiently. Every word contributes to agent understanding.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the two main states and the returned URLs. It could potentially elaborate on the partial connection state or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the output.
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 the schema fully documents the input space (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional meaning is required.
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 detail about the authenticated state and pending array. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication, and from other siblings like 'show_version' or 'toolkit_info' by being connection-specific.
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, especially when needing to verify provider connectivity or obtain connect URLs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context of being a read-only status tool is clear, and sibling 'authenticate' suggests the complementary action 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: auth handles login, connect reports connection status, marketplace manages the MCP catalog, pep_parentescos_consultar performs the domain query, and the rest are utility/feedback/version tools. However, connect and toolkit_info both provide connection/status information, which could cause an agent to select the wrong one.
Naming style is mixed: some tools are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a different convention (pep_parentescos_consultar). Although all are lowercase with underscores, the lack of a consistent verb/noun pattern reduces predictability.
Seven tools is within the typical range, but the server's declared domain (PEP parentescos) is covered by only one tool; the rest are platform-level utilities (auth, marketplace, version, etc.). This makes the tool count feel inflated relative to the domain purpose, though it is not extreme.
The domain tool provides the core capability (PEP/relationship check via CPF) and is backed by platform tools for authentication, payment, and status. There are no obvious dead ends, though there is no consult history or batch operation, which would be minor enhancements.