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, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context about return behavior in different states (authenticated:true vs connect_url), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.
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 main purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail about behavior. No wasted words 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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers the two key scenarios (all connected vs credentials missing). It could mention partial connection states or clarify 'pending', but for a low-complexity status tool, the description is largely complete.
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. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not omit any schema-covered information. No additional parameter semantics required.
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, with specific details about two outcomes. It is specific about the resource (connection status) and the action (returns), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'authenticate', so it meets 'clear but no sibling differentiation'.
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 usage as a status-checking tool by describing what it returns under different conditions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, with no exclusions or direct comparisons.
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.
The marketplace tool is a catch-all that overlaps with report_bug (which it also mentions it can do), connect, and toolkit_info in terms of status and management. The single domain-specific tool, sancoes_canada_consultar, is clearly distinct from the platform utilities, but the utility tools have unclear boundaries among themselves.
Names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and snake_case (report_bug, show_version, sancoes_canada_consultar). The Portuguese domain tool breaks the otherwise English naming convention, and there is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic platform utilities (auth, connection, marketplace, bug reporting, version, state) while only one serves the Canada sanctions domain. The scope feels split between a platform admin toolkit and a specific data service, making the count less coherent for the server's stated purpose.
The domain surface is extremely thin: only a single lookup operation for Canada sanctions, with no additional query types, listing options, or batch operations. The other tools address platform lifecycle, not the sanctions domain, leaving obvious gaps for a compliance-focused server (e.g., different sanction lists, detailed results, watchlists).