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 and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds contextual behavior: it specifies the response shape for 'all providers connected' vs 'credentials missing,' including the connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond the structured fields.
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 main purpose and concise state-specific behavior. 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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description sufficiently covers the primary states (all connected vs credentials missing). It does not describe partial connection states, but the two extremes are clear enough for typical usage.
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 baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also explains state-dependent outputs (authenticated:true vs connect_url), distinguishing it from sibling 'authenticate' which performs auth rather than checking status.
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 when to use it (checking connection status and obtaining URLs when credentials are missing) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling 'authenticate' exists but is not referenced, leaving room for explicit guidance.
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 distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace finds/runs MCPs, peti_trabalho_infantil_consultar queries PETI data, etc. However, connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, which could cause minor confusion.
Tool names mix styles: some are simple verbs (connect, authenticate), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a hyphenated branded name (peti_trabalho_infantil_consultar), and one is a pure noun (marketplace). The pattern is not uniform, though still readable.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable and within typical bounds. However, the server is branded as 'PETI (Trabalho Infantil)' yet only one tool directly relates to that domain, making the platform tools feel slightly excessive for the apparent purpose.
For the sole PETI-specific purpose, consulting a person's status by CPF/NIS is covered, but there are no additional operations like historical queries or batch checks. The platform management tools are comprehensive, but they are unrelated to the core domain, creating a sense of patchwork coverage.