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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about conditional return values (authenticated:true vs connect_url), going beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 action, and every sentence adds value by explaining both possible outcomes. No fluff or repetition.
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?
This is a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully explains the two possible return states, making it complete for an agent to understand expected results. Sibling context further helps disambiguation.
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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4 per the guidelines. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it instead clarifies the output semantics, which 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 states 'Returns connection status and URLs' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'authenticate' which likely initiates a connection. It further clarifies the two outcomes, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 gives clear context for when the tool returns different states ('When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...'), implying use for checking connection status. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of 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.
Tools have distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and a specific domain query. Some minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info (both report connection status), but generally an agent can choose correctly.
Naming is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is Portuguese with the verb at the end (trabalho_forcado_consultar). There is no uniform pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server's name suggests a domain-specific scope (forced labor list), and six of the seven tools are generic platform utilities. The count feels imbalanced—too many meta-tools and too few domain tools relative to the apparent purpose.
The platform side is fairly complete (auth, status, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit state), but the domain side is extremely thin: a single query tool for the dirty list, with no other operations like listing, batch checks, or historical data. For a server named after the domain, this is a significant gap.