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 behavioral detail beyond these: what happens when all providers are connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and when credentials are missing (returns connect_url and per-install URLs). This is valuable context with no contradiction.
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 only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and the second sentence efficiently covers the two main behavioral states. No unnecessary words.
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?
The description covers the two primary states and provides relevant URLs. It does not explicitly describe a partial-connection state or define what pending[] means, but given the tool's simplicity, rich annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, it is sufficiently 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, and the input schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description doesn't need to add parameter information; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description meets that baseline.
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 explicitly states it returns connection status and URLs, and clarifies the two distinct scenarios (all providers connected vs credentials missing). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate and show_version, 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool by describing the two possible outcomes, implying it should be used to check connection status. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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 platform tools have clear roles, but there is overlap between connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace—all deal with connection/installation status to some degree. The single domain tool is clearly distinct, but the marketplace's broad scope creates potential confusion.
Tool names mix English and Portuguese verbs/nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, sancoes_suica_consultar) with no consistent pattern. Some are camelCase, some lowercase, and one uses a Portuguese verb phrase.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated sanctions domain. This makes the set feel bloated for its intended purpose and dilutes the domain focus.
For the Swiss sanctions domain, only a single query tool exists—it checks names but provides no other operations like listing all sanctions or retrieving detailed entry information. The platform tools are comprehensive but irrelevant to the domain, leaving the sanctions surface minimal.