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. The description adds conditional return behavior (all connected vs missing credentials), which is valuable context beyond annotations. No contradictions noted.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise conditional details. No fluff or redundant information.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main behavior in two states, which is sufficient. It could mention partial connection states, but the given coverage is adequate. Annotations cover safety, so the description doesn't need to repeat that.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description provides useful context about return values instead.
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 behaviors (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate (which likely initiates auth) and show_version.
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: it is a read-only status check. It implies when to use it (to check connection status) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like authenticate. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient.
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 tools are mostly distinct: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, and the sanctions lookup each serve different purposes. However, connect and toolkit_info both provide status-related information, which could cause minor confusion.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use lowercase English words with varied patterns (single verbs, noun, verb_noun), while the sanctions tool uses Portuguese with an underscore-separated phrase. No consistent verb_noun or camelCase pattern exists.
With 7 tools, the count is within the typical reasonable range. The platform management tools are appropriate for a marketplace/infrastructure server, though only one domain-specific tool is present given the server's name.
The platform management capabilities (auth, connection, marketplace, introspection) are fairly complete, but the sanctions-specific functionality is extremely limited — only a single consult tool, with no additional operations like batch lookup, list sanctions, or detailed reporting.