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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the conditional output structure (authenticated:true vs connect_url), which goes 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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous wording. It is concise and well-structured.
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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers both possible outcomes and the URLs returned. It is sufficiently complete without missing critical information.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, no additional parameter explanation is needed in the description.
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, with specific details on the output in different scenarios. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status rather than initiating authentication.
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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives like authenticate. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage somewhat inferred.
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 are systematically distinct (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), but the marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions that overlap with standalone tools like report_bug and with authentication concerns. The single CNDT tool is clearly different, yet the mix of platform management and domain-specific tools can cause confusion about intended usage.
Names mix single verbs, noun phrases, and a prefixed 'tst_' among the domain tool, with no consistent verb_noun pattern. This is further complicated by 'marketplace' being a noun while others like 'connect' and 'authenticate' are verbs.
Seven tools falls within the recommended range, but the majority are generic platform utilities that seem unrelated to the CNDT (labor debt certificate) purpose. One domain-specific tool and six platform tools suggests the count is more about platform infrastructure than the server's stated mission.
The CNDT workflow is covered by a single query tool, and the supporting tools for authentication and payment exist, so basic usage is possible. However, there is no history, batch query, or administrative functionality, and the platform tools do not directly enhance the CNDT domain, leaving a thin surface for the server's apparent purpose.