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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying the response conditions (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs), which goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second expands on specific return behavior. Every word earns its place.
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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple status check, the description fully covers the tool's behavior in both relevant scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials). It is complete and self-contained, even without an output schema.
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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-param tools, and the description correctly avoids inventing unneeded parameter details.
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, which is a specific and distinct purpose compared to sibling tools like 'authenticate'. It explicitly describes the resource (connection status) and the action (returns), making it clear this is a read-only status check.
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 by explaining what happens when providers are connected versus when credentials are missing, implying this tool is used to check connection status before or after authentication. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of authenticate', but the behavior described makes the usage scenario clear.
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, but `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection status, which could cause confusion. The domain tool `registro_pf_ar_consultar` is clearly unique.
Names mix single verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), a noun (`marketplace`), and compound forms (`report_bug`, `show_version`), plus an inconsistent underscore-heavy domain name (`registro_pf_ar_consultar`). No clear naming pattern.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, and the platform utilities earn their place alongside the single domain operation. The count is slightly high for such a narrow domain, but not excessive.
The domain surface is severely limited: only `registro_pf_ar_consultar` provides the core data lookup, with no other domain-related operations (e.g., different lookup keys, batch queries, or data explanations). The platform utilities are complete, but the server's stated purpose is the Argentina PF data, which is under-served.