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?
The description discloses behavioral detail beyond annotations: it specifies the exact return structure in two states (all providers connected vs credentials missing), including field names like 'authenticated' and 'pending'. This adds useful context not captured by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then providing specific scenario-based return values. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.
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 parameter-less tool with no output schema, the description covers the two primary states (all connected and missing credentials) and mentions connect_url and per-install URLs. It does not detail partial connection states or the meaning of 'pending', but it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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 schema provides complete coverage vacuously. The description naturally has no parameter semantics to add, but the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to compensate for.
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 a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('connection status'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than performing authentication, making the purpose 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 implies usage for checking connection status and retrieving connect URLs when credentials are missing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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.
Authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info overlap on auth/connection status, and marketplace is a sprawling multi-action tool. However, the descriptions are detailed enough to help an agent distinguish them most of the time.
Naming is inconsistent: single-word tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace mix with snake_case verbs like report_bug and show_version, plus the domain-specific sancoes_onu_consultar. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the server's name suggests a sanctions domain while only one tool is sanctions-specific. The rest are generic MCP platform utilities, making the set feel padded and off-purpose.
The sanctions surface is just a single lookup tool with no additional operations like listing filters or batch queries. The other six tools serve platform management, leaving the domain coverage minimal and the server's actual purpose unclear.