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 mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it explains the response conditions (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing), which goes well 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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise condition-specific details. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.
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 two main cases (all connected vs. missing credentials) and mentions key return fields, which is good for a simple no-parameter tool without an output schema. However, it leaves some ambiguity about partial connection states (some providers connected, some not), so it's not fully complete.
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 per the baseline for 0 params, the description doesn't need to explain parameter specifics. It adds no parameter information, but none is required given the empty schema.
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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the conditional explanations (authenticated:true vs connect_url) distinguish it from siblings like authenticate or toolkit_info.
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 the tool—to check connection status and obtain URLs—and provides context about the two outcome states. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the explicit guidance needed for a 5.
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 single tool that combines search, execution, installation, billing, and prompt management, creating a broad, ambiguous interface. connect, authenticate, and toolkit_info all relate to connection or status, with overlapping purposes. Only tcu_consolidada_pj_consultar is clearly distinct.
Tool names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb-noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), with the domain-specific tool using a long snake_case phrase. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Seven tools is within the typical 3-15 range, but six of them are generic platform management utilities, while only one addresses the server's named TCU purpose. The count is reasonable for a general MCP platform but mismatched for a TCU-specific server.
For the TCU domain, only a single query operation exists, with no additional lookups or related actions. The platform side is more complete, but the server's core stated purpose—TCU consolidated data—has minimal coverage, leaving agents without fallback or complementary operations.