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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses specific conditional behavior: when all providers are connected, it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]; when credentials are missing, it returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This adds meaningful context.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide essential conditional details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.
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 tool, the description covers the main scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the returned URLs. However, it does not explicitly address intermediate states (e.g., some providers connected), which could be a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for understanding the tool's behavior.
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%, so there is no need for the description to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, as there is nothing extra to add.
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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the conditional behavior distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, making its 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 implies when to use the tool (to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, though it could be improved by contrasting with authenticate.
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.
Connect and toolkit_info both report connection status and installed MCPs, creating ambiguity. Authenticate and connect also overlap in the authentication flow, while marketplace's list_tools further duplicates toolkit introspection.
Names mix English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with a Portuguese verb (sintegra_consultar) and nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), showing no consistent pattern or language.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic MCP platform utilities unrelated to Sintegra. Only one tool serves the stated domain, making the set feel padded with irrelevant meta-tools.
For the Sintegra domain, only a single query tool exists, lacking any additional operations like listing supported states or verifying service status. The platform utilities do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the surface thin.