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 readOnly and idempotent. The description adds behavioral detail, such as returning connect_url when credentials are missing and authenticated:true when all providers are connected, which enriches transparency beyond the 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 long, concise, and well-structured. It directly conveys the tool's behavior without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
The description covers the main outputs (authenticated status, pending list, connect URLs) but does not explicitly mention error scenarios or other edge cases. It is sufficiently complete for typical use, though additional detail on failure modes could enhance completeness.
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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since there are none; baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace. It specifies the exact outputs under different conditions, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 for checking connection status but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over others. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, though its behavior is described.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct role: authenticate handles login, connect checks connection status, marketplace discovers/invokes MCPs, report_bug sends feedback, show_version reports versions, toolkit_info shows installed state, and sintegra_rn_consultar performs the actual query. Some overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info (both report status), but they emphasize different details (auth URLs vs. installed MCPs), so confusion is unlikely.
Tool names follow no single convention: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some are noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), one is verb+noun (show_version), and one is domain-specific snake_case (sintegra_rn_consultar). The mixing of verb-first, noun-first, and domain-prefixed names makes the set feel inconsistent and harder to predict.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the count is imbalanced relative to the server's stated purpose ('SINTEGRA: RN'). Six of the seven tools are generic MCP platform management tools, while only one tool actually handles SINTEGRA consultation. The number isn't extreme, but the composition suggests a scope mismatch.
As a platform management server, the coverage is solid: authentication, connection status, marketplace search/invoke/install, toolkit state, version, and bug reporting are all present. However, for the domain implied by the server name, the only capability is a single SINTEGRA query—no other operations are exposed. This leaves the actual domain under-covered while over-covering platform plumbing.