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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the behavioral states: when all providers connected vs. missing credentials, and what fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url, per-install URLs) are returned in each case. This goes beyond 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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every clause adds information about behavior, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It covers both success and missing-credential cases, and mentions specific fields like 'authenticated', 'pending[]', and 'connect_url'. It could clarify what 'pending' represents, but overall it is complete for a simple read-only status tool.
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 adds no parameter details but none are needed. It does not repeat schema information, and the schema is empty, so the description compensates adequately by explaining the response behavior.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' (which likely initiates auth) and 'toolkit_info' by focusing on connection state, and it details the two possible outcomes, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 use for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. There is no exclusions or alternative guidance, so it relies on the reader to infer the context.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate handles credentials, connect checks status, marketplace searches/invokes MCPs, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays version info, toolkit_info shows installed MCPs, and sema_mt_apf_consultar performs the actual domain query. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Tool names follow mixed conventions: some are plain verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), some are verb-noun (report_bug, show_version), and one is in Portuguese with a domain prefix (sema_mt_apf_consultar). This inconsistency makes naming patterns unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for this server, but six of them are generic platform utilities (auth, connection, diagnostics, marketplace) while only one is domain-specific. The count is appropriate, though the balance feels slightly off given the server's stated purpose appears to be a specific APF Rural consultation.
The domain surface is a single consultation endpoint, which is fully covered by sema_mt_apf_consultar. There is no obvious missing CRUD operation because the domain is inherently read-only. However, the toolkit lacks any domain-specific history, batching, or additional query capabilities, which could be considered a minor gap if more granular interactions were expected.