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 read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the two distinct return states (authenticated with empty pending[] vs. missing credentials with connect_url), giving the agent a clear picture of likely responses.
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?
Two sentences deliver purpose and behavioral detail with no fluff. The opening phrase 'Returns connection status and URLs' front-loads the core function.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It explains the two main states, but could be slightly richer about the shape of pending[] or the meaning of 'per-install URLs.' Still, for a low-complexity tool, it is adequate.
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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Parameter semantics are not applicable, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('connection status and URLs'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate that establish connections.
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 state but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like authenticate or state when not to use it. The conditional behavior provides context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance.
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 tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status information, and authenticate overlaps with connect around authentication flow. The marketplace tool is a catch-all with many sub-actions, but as a named tool it is unique.
Naming conventions are mixed: single verbs (authenticate, connect), noun tools (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb_noun in English (report_bug, show_version), and one Portuguese verb_noun (sintegra_ccc_consultar). This inconsistency makes the tool list feel chaotic and hard to predict.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server is named 'Sintegra CCC' and only one tool (sintegra_ccc_consultar) actually provides the core domain capability. The other six are generic MCP.AI platform utilities, making the tool set feel misaligned with the server's stated purpose.
For a Sintegra CCC server, the surface is severely lacking: only one consultation tool exists, with no additional domain operations or auxiliary features. While the platform-management tools are complete for their own domain, they do not contribute to the stated Sintegra CCC purpose, leaving the domain coverage nearly empty.