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 provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the two distinct return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url and per-install URLs), which is behavioral detail beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with 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 tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by explaining conditional outputs. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.
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 with rich annotations, the description adequately covers the primary scenarios in prose. A minor gap: partial connectivity states (some providers connected, some not) aren't addressed, but the two main cases are well covered.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly implies that no input is required to perform the status check, and there are no undocumented params to compensate for.
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 opens with 'Returns connection status and URLs', a specific verb+resource that clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes from the sibling `authenticate` tool by framing this as a status-check rather than an auth action, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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?
Usage context is implied through the conditional outcome descriptions ('When all providers are connected' vs 'When credentials are missing'), which signals when the tool is relevant. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this versus `authenticate` or other siblings, and no exclusions stated.
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.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: connect and toolkit_info both describe connection/status information, and marketplace is a catch-all that can invoke one-off tools, complicating the distinction from the direct CND consultation tool. The only clearly unique domain tool is pref_ba_juazeiro_cnd_consultar, but the generic helpers overlap with each other.
Tool names mix bare verbs like connect and report_bug with noun-style names like marketplace and toolkit_info, and the Portuguese-specific pref_ba_juazeiro_cnd_consultar follows a different convention. There is no consistent verb_noun or domain pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a platform-support surface, so the size is not inherently bloated. However, only one tool directly serves the apparent CND-focused purpose, with the rest being generic platform/management helpers, creating a borderline scope mismatch.
The CND domain is essentially a single consult operation, and pref_ba_juazeiro_cnd_consultar covers that core workflow. The supporting tools provide enough auth/connection and error-reporting coverage, though a dedicated provider-specific workflow beyond that would be clearer.