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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying conditional outputs: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. This goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations without repeating 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase earns its place, explaining both normal and missing-credential outcomes without any fluff. Excellent structure for quick parsing.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (no params, read-only status check) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main return states. However, it does not explain what pending[] contains when not all providers are connected or how partial connectivity is represented, which could be useful for full completeness.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is effectively 100% (the schema has no properties). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail, 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 clearly states it returns connection status and URLs, using specific verb 'returns' and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than initiating authentication, and describes key output conditions.
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' or 'toolkit_info'. There is no exclusion or direct mention of alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent deciding between tools.
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.
Each tool has a broadly distinct role—auth, status, marketplace, version, toolkit info, and the domain query. However, `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection state, and `marketplace` bundles many sub-operations (search, invoke, install, prompts) into one tool, which can blur boundaries.
Naming is inconsistent: platform tools mix verb-led names (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with noun-led names (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the single domain tool uses a Portuguese noun-based phrase (vinculos_societarios_consultar). This mixing of language and pattern makes the set feel arbitrary.
The server is named 'Vínculos Societários' but only one of seven tools is domain-specific; the other six are generic platform management tools that could belong to any MCP server. The domain tool count is too thin, while the meta-tool count is oversized relative to the stated purpose.
For the domain of corporate relationship lookup, only a single consult operation is provided. There are no supporting tools for data preview, history, export, or related searches, and no obvious operations to complement the core query. The platform helpers do not contribute to domain coverage.