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?
The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it specifies the exact return values ('authenticated:true and empty pending[]') and the conditional presence of 'connect_url' and 'per-install URLs'. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.
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 every sentence adds value by describing state-dependent behavior. It is concise and well-structured without unnecessary fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description is complete. It explains the primary output and how it varies under different conditions, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 accepts no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and with zero parameters, the baseline score is 4. No additional parameter information 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.' This is a specific verb (returns) with a clear resource (connection status), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'authenticate' by focusing on status 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to check connection status and get relevant URLs. It also explains behavior in different states (all connected vs. missing credentials), but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusionary 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.
Several tools overlap in the authentication/connection space (authenticate, connect, toolkit_info), and the massive marketplace tool dwarfs the single domain-specific tool. An agent may struggle to choose the right tool for routine setup vs. actual certificate consultation.
Tool names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), a Portuguese descriptive phrase (pref_ba_ilheus_cnd_consultar), and compound verbs (report_bug, show_version). No consistent verb_noun pattern is followed.
Seven tools is numerically reasonable, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated purpose. The actual domain-specific functionality is reduced to a single tool, making the set feel bloated and misaligned.
The domain of issuing a negative certificate is served by one core consultation tool, but no additional domain operations (e.g., certificate history, validation, cancellation) exist. The platform tools add unrelated breadth rather than filling domain-specific gaps.