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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying response states: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. No contradiction with 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 composed of three concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and two key behavioral scenarios. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no redundant or filler text.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description covers the main return states (fully connected and missing credentials) sufficiently. It does not enumerate intermediate/partial states or detailed URL formats, but these are not critical for initial selection or invocation. Overall, it is complete enough given the tool's simplicity.
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 the schema is empty. Per the rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4; the description correctly does not attempt to describe nonexistent parameters. No additional parameter information is needed.
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 'Returns connection status and URLs', using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate (which likely performs an action) by focusing on status/URL retrieval rather than state change.
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 provides clear context: it is used to check connection status and obtain URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scenarios described ('when all providers are connected' vs 'when credentials are missing') imply the appropriate usage. Sibling differentiation is not explicit, so it misses full marks.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect reports connection status, marketplace is a broad catalog/invoke hub, and the rest are utility functions. However, marketplace is overloaded and could be confused with toolkit_info or connect for status queries, and authenticate/connect overlap slightly.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single-word verbs (connect, marketplace, authenticate) mix with verb_noun underscores (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) and one long domain-specific name (transparencia_indicadores_pf_consultar) that breaks the style entirely.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the set is dominated by generic platform-management utilities, with only one domain-specific tool. For a server named 'Indicadores PF', the ratio feels disproportionate and many tools seem unrelated to the server's stated purpose.
The domain surface is severely thin: only a single consult operation for PF indicators, with no way to list available indicators, review history, or perform other related tasks. The platform tools don't contribute to domain coverage, leaving the set incomplete for its apparent purpose.