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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds useful context about the two return scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url when credentials missing), enhancing transparency beyond 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently explains the conditional outcomes without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what the agent will receive in both possible states. It is self-sufficient for a status-check tool and clearly differentiated from siblings.
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, the schema is fully covered (100%). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't introduce any ambiguity, so it earns this.
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, with a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'connection status and URLs'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on connectivity and authentication status, unlike authenticate or marketplace.
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?
It provides contextual guidance by explaining when credentials are missing (returns connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs), implying usage for checking connectivity or obtaining authentication URLs. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings like 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.
authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all touch connection/auth status, and marketplace also handles credential and billing links, so an agent could easily pick the wrong tool. Only sintegra_pr_consultar, report_bug, and show_version are clearly unambiguous.
The set mixes generic English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), noun-style tools (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese verb_noun domain tool (sintegra_pr_consultar). Snake_case is consistent, but there is no predictable action/resource pattern across the set.
Seven tools is not an unreasonable number, but six of them are generic platform/marketplace utilities while only one is actually SINTEGRA-specific. The count is numerically fine yet imbalanced for a server named after a specific data source.
The core SINTEGRA PR consultation capability is present, and the surrounding platform tools cover auth, connection status, billing, and version reporting. The main gap is the absence of any SINTEGRA-specific batch, history, or status operations, but for a single-query consultation service the surface is workable.