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 tool is known to be safe. The description adds useful context about return states (authenticated:true and empty pending[], or connect_url), which is beyond annotations. It doesn't describe potential side effects or auth requirements, but for a read-only tool with strong annotations, this is acceptable.
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 core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and every sentence adds value: the second explains conditional behavior. No wasted words.
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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, but annotations cover safety), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and why to call it. It clearly describes successful and pending states, which is adequate for a status-check tool.
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, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds meaning by explaining the output semantics (connection status and URLs) without needing parameter details. Since there are no parameters, the description is effective in conveying what the tool does, earning a 4.
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, and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on read-only connection status, which is distinct from tools like authenticate or marketplace. However, it could be more specific in naming the exact resource (e.g., 'connection status' is clear but generic).
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 this tool: to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but it contrasts with the 'authenticate' sibling, providing clear context for usage. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
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 monolith covering search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt library actions, while separate report_bug and connect tools overlap with it. Existing overlaps (connect vs toolkit_info status, authenticate vs connect) create ambiguity. An agent would struggle to decide whether to use marketplace or the dedicated tool.
Tool names mix bare verbs (connect, authenticate), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun compounds (report_bug, show_version, sintegra_sp_consultar), and noun_noun (toolkit_info). No consistent verb-object pattern; styles vary between snake_case and words without delimiters, making predictions unreliable.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range for a platform toolkit. The count is reasonable, though the marketplace tool shoulders many responsibilities and could be split; still, the overall number is appropriate.
The server covers authentication, connection status, MCP discovery/execution, billing controls, feedback, version info, toolkit state, and a specific data lookup. Minor gaps like user preference management are absent, but core workflows are represented. The inclusion of sintegra_sp_consultar appears domain-specific but does not create a dead end.