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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful conditional details about authenticated:true with empty pending[] versus connect URLs when credentials are missing, going beyond the structured 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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide state-dependent details. No filler or redundant information.
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 status tool with strong annotations, the description covers the key behaviors and return states. It could be slightly more exhaustive about the exact response shape, but it is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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 there is no parameter information to provide. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented inputs.
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 returns connection status and URLs, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status/URL output rather than the authentication flow.
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 gives clear context for when this tool is useful—checking connection status—and describes behavior in two relevant states. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditional logic implies when it should be used.
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.
Most tools target obvious separate concerns, but marketplace is a mega-tool that bundles actions like report_bug, list_tools, install, and prompt management, while report_bug and toolkit_info also exist separately. This creates real overlap and requires careful reading to pick the right entry point.
All names use lowercase snake_case, which helps, but the semantic pattern is inconsistent: authenticate and connect are bare verbs, report_bug and show_version are verb+noun, marketplace and toolkit_info are noun-like, and sintegra_mt_consultar is a Portuguese object+verb construction. The names are readable but do not suggest one predictable convention.
Seven tools is a reasonable, non-bloated count for an MCP server. However, the marketplace tool contains a large number of sub-operations and effectively acts as many tools in one, while report_bug appears both separately and inside marketplace, so the surface is less clean than the raw count suggests.
The main lifecycle is covered: authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/invoke/install, toolkit state, versioning, feedback, and the Sintegra-MT query itself. For a read-only data consultation, full CRUD is not expected; missing dedicated wallet-balance/top-up and disconnect/deauth tools are notable but workable via marketplace links.