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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the conditional return values, such as the pending array and connect_url behavior, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's state-dependent semantics without contradicting the annotations.
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, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the conditional details in the second. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.
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, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return states and URL behavior. It could be more exhaustive about edge cases (e.g., partial connection), but it provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret common results. Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly 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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to add parameter details, as there are none.
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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It then elaborates on the specific output states (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs. connect_url and per-install URLs), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which implies taking an action rather than checking status.
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 readiness but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions behavioral conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), which hints at scenarios, but no explicit exclusion or alternative reference is given.
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 connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace's list_tools could be confused with toolkit_info's list of installed MCPs. Descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate in most cases.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: imperative verbs (authenticate, connect), a lone noun (marketplace), verb_noun compounds (report_bug, show_version), and a Portuguese-specific name (seguro_defeso_consultar). Naming style is highly inconsistent.
Seven tools is within the ideal 3-15 range, and each tool earns its place for platform management. The mix is unusual (infrastructure + marketplace + one domain query), but the count itself is not excessive.
For a server named 'Seguro Defeso', only one domain-specific tool exists (seguro_defeso_consultar), leaving significant gaps in benefit-related operations. The platform tools are complete, but the domain coverage is minimal and could cause agent failures for anything beyond basic consultation.