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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing conditional return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url when credentials missing), which is behavior beyond the 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence contributes meaningful details about behavior, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
It covers the two main scenarios (all connected vs credentials missing) but does not address partial connectivity, which is a likely intermediate state. Terms like 'pending[]' and 'per-install URLs' are not explained, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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 is 4. There is no parameter information needed in the description, and the schema confirms an empty properties object.
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 specifies a clear action ('Returns connection status and URLs') and distinguishes it from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing an action. It also describes the two key outcomes, making its scope unambiguous.
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 call it: to check whether all providers are connected or if credentials are missing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'authenticate' for performing the login, so it lacks explicit exclusion/alternative 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.
Tools have clearly distinct purposes: auth, connection status, marketplace operations, data lookup, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. The only slight overlap is between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both reporting connection status, but they serve different contexts.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: mix of bare verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), English verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version), Spanish verb_noun (registro_pf_mx_consultar), and noun_noun (toolkit_info). Also, language is mixed (English vs. Spanish).
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the scope is broad and includes many platform-level utilities alongside a single domain-specific tool. The count itself is appropriate, though the mix feels uneven.
For the stated domain (Mexican PF data), only a single consultation operation exists, which is sufficient for public data lookup but lacks any additional operations. The platform tools (marketplace) provide indirect completeness by enabling other MCPs, but that shifts focus away from the server's primary name.