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 readOnlyHint, destructiveHint:false, and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail by describing the two main result states, the authenticated flag, and the returned connection URLs. This gives the agent concrete expectations about the tool's behavior.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the normal success state and the credential-missing fallback state.
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 simple zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description covers the key success and failure scenarios and the relevant returned fields. There is no output schema, but the text compensates for the important return values; it could still be more explicit about partial connection states.
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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.
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 operation as returning connection status and URLs, making it a read-only status check. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling authenticate tool.
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 usage through conditions ('When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...'), but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus authenticate or how to react to the returned URLs. The usage guidance is conveyed by the return-value conditions rather than 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 god-object combining discovery, execution, installation, billing, and a prompt library under one name, making intent selection ambiguous. At the same time, authenticate, connect, show_version, and toolkit_info all blur together around 'platform state,' forcing an agent to guess which one applies. Only sintegra_pb_consultar is unambiguous in purpose.
Naming conventions are mixed across bare verbs (authenticate, connect), a bare noun (marketplace), snake_case verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and Portuguese noun-verb (sintegra_pb_consultar). While the Portuguese is thematically appropriate for a Brazilian service, mixing two languages and three structural patterns in a 7-tool surface shows no governing convention.
At 7 tools, the raw count sits comfortably in the ideal range, but composition is lopsided: 6 of 7 tools are generic platform plumbing (auth, connectivity, version, bug reports, toolkit state) while only one serves the SINTEGRA: PB domain. The marketplace tool alone likely encapsulates 5-8 distinct operations that would be separate tools in a well-factored server.
The actual SINTEGRA domain receives a single tool with no supporting operations: no credit-balance check for the prepaid model, no query history, no receipt, and no result-formatting variants. The abundant platform tooling (install, subscribe, publish prompts) addresses the marketplace ecosystem but does nothing to close the gaps in the one service the server claims to deliver.