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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these annotations by detailing the two possible response states (authenticated with empty pending[] vs. missing credentials with connect_url), which helps the agent anticipate outcomes. This is valuable but not exhaustive, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 long and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'). Every sentence adds needed information about state-dependent behavior, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.
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 tool is simple: no parameters, no output schema, and safe read-only behavior. The description explains the two main scenarios and what fields to expect (authenticated, pending, connect_url). This is complete for the tool's scope, and sibling context doesn't require additional detail.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, as there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter coverage gaps.
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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by describing a status check rather than an authentication action, and the conditional explanations further clarify its purpose.
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 it by describing how it behaves when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. It implies a readiness check, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use authenticate for actual authentication.' This earns a 4 for clear context without 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.
The core consultation tool is distinct, but authenticate and connect overlap somewhat around authentication/connection status, and marketplace is a sprawling tool covering many sub-actions (search, invoke, install, etc.) that overlaps with report_bug and toolkit_info. Detailed descriptions help, but boundaries remain fuzzy.
Tool names mix single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), noun_verb (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), a marketplace noun, and a Portuguese domain name (similaridade_br_consultar). There is no consistent naming convention across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable size, but most tools are generic MCP platform utilities rather than serving the identity similarity purpose. The count itself is fine, though the scope feels a bit unfocused.
The primary operation of querying identity similarity is covered, along with authentication and connection status. Billing and marketplace operations are also present. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit balance/credit check, but these are indirectly handled via marketplace links.