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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about return behavior (e.g., 'returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]' when all connected, and 'connect_url' when credentials are missing) beyond what annotations convey. It contains no contradictions.
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 concise, using just two sentences to convey the tool's purpose and key conditional behaviors. No filler words or unnecessary detail.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral states (connected vs. missing credentials) and provides the relevant URLs. Though it could mention error cases or additional fields, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output in most scenarios.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and it correctly focuses on response semantics.
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 'Returns connection status and URLs,' which is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than authentication actions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it misses the full differentiation credit.
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) but never explicitly says 'use this when you need to...' nor mentions alternatives. The conditional response patterns hint at usage scenarios, but the guidance is not stated as direct instructions.
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 marketplace tool is a mega-tool containing search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, prompt-library, and even bug-reporting actions, which overlaps with the separate report_bug tool. connect and toolkit_info also overlap in connection/status reporting, making tool selection ambiguous.
Names mix verb-style actions (authenticate, connect, report_bug), noun-style labels (marketplace, toolkit_info), and an inconsistent Portuguese snake_case domain tool (sintegra_ma_consultar). There is no clear or predictable naming convention across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but it is misleading because marketplace alone bundles well over ten distinct capabilities under one name. The surface would be more coherent and better counted if those actions were split out.
The server covers authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/execution/install, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. However, management operations like uninstall/subscription handling are hidden inside marketplace, and the SINTEGRA MA domain is reduced to a single query with no related history or supporting tools.