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. The description adds meaningful behavior: it explains the two possible return states (authenticated true with empty pending vs. connect_url) and mentions per-install URLs. This goes beyond the safety profile in 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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundancy.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (status and URL retrieval) and the two key scenarios. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity, though it could mention how to interpret the URLs.
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 and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; instead, it clarifies the output semantics, which is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: connection status and URLs. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' by focusing on status reporting, not actions.
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 context on expected output in different states (connected vs. missing credentials) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.
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: authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/execution, domain lookup, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is minor overlap between authenticate and connect, but their descriptions clarify the different concerns.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), a contextual object-action (protestos_nacional_consultar), and verb-noun combinations (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are mixed without a unified convention.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server is dominated by platform meta-tools with only one domain-specific tool, making the tool count feel unbalanced for a server named 'Protestos Nacional'.
The single protestos consultation tool covers basic lookup needs, but the domain surface is very thin with no additional operations like history, export, or batch queries. The meta-tools provide broader platform capabilities but do not fill domain-specific gaps.