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 provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by explaining the exact return payloads in different states (all providers connected vs missing credentials). It also discloses the presence of connect_url, per-install URLs, and the pending[] array, offering transparency beyond 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?
Two compact sentences front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') and efficient conditional details. 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description fully covers expected outcomes in both connected and missing-credential scenarios. There is no output schema, so explaining return fields is essential, and this description delivers it clearly.
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 and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the focus on return values 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 clearly states the tool 'returns connection status and URLs' with specific conditional outcomes (authenticated:true vs connect_url). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which likely performs authentication actions.
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 the tool is used to check connection status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like authenticate. The conditional behavior (when credentials missing vs present) gives context but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings.
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 is for login token, connect for status, marketplace for discovering/running MCPs, report_bug for feedback, show_version for versions, toolkit_info for installed state, and the domain-specific consultar tool. The only slight overlap is between authenticate and connect, as both relate to connection/auth, but their functions are clearly differentiated in the descriptions.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), compound nouns (toolkit_info), and a snake_case domain-specific name (veiculo_historico_sp_consultar). Mixing conventions makes it hard to predict related tool names.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range. However, the server bundles broad platform utilities with a single domain-specific tool, creating a mismatch with the server name. Still, the count itself is reasonable for the actual functionality offered.
For the vehicle history domain, there is only one consult tool, which covers the basic query but lacks any supporting operations (e.g., history, status, or batch). The platform utilities are fairly complete but belong to a different purpose. This leaves notable gaps if the server is meant to be a cohesive vehicle-history service.