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 and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining conditional behaviors: it returns 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' when all providers are connected, and provides 'connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs' when credentials are missing. This clarifies response structure beyond what annotations convey.
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 function, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to explaining behavior and output.
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 simple status tool with no parameters and rich annotations, the description covers the key states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the output in both cases. It does not describe partial connection states, but the mention of 'pending[]' hints at intermediate scenarios, and the description is largely adequate for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 the schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters.
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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('connection status'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 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 implies when to use the tool—to check connection status or obtain URLs when credentials are missing—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The mention of connect_url when credentials are missing hints at using authenticate, but this is implicit rather than explicit 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but authenticate and connect both deal with connection/auth, and marketplace overlaps with toolkit_info in describing the toolkit state. The descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate in most cases.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), one is a compound (toolkit_info), and the domain tool follows a different pattern (sancoes_australia_consultar). No consistent convention.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range. However, the server is ostensibly about Australian sanctions, yet only one tool is domain-specific; the rest are platform utilities, making the overall scope feel a bit unfocused but not excessive.
The only domain-specific tool is a single lookup for sanctions. There is no batch query, history, or other sanctions-related operations, but for a simple compliance check, it may suffice. The platform tools cover connection and lifecycle needs, so no obvious dead ends.