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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds concrete behavior details: it returns an authenticated flag, a pending list, and per-install URLs depending on credential status. This gives the agent a clear expectation of outputs and conditions, going beyond the basic annotation.
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, concise and well-structured. It logically presents the normal case (authenticated) and the missing-credentials case, without any redundant information.
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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and the conditions under which they appear. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what to expect.
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 no parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly omits any mention since there are none.
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's purpose: it returns connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than 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 when to use it (e.g., to see if authentication is needed, as it returns connect_url when credentials are missing), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'authenticate'. The guidance is somewhat implicit rather than directly stated.
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.
The tools generally have distinct purposes: one domain query, plus auth, connection status, catalog, bug reporting, version, and toolkit state. A little overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info, but the descriptions clarify their different focuses.
All names use lowercase snake_case and are readable, but the pattern is mixed: some are imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool is object-verb (antt_veiculo_consultar).
Seven tools is a reasonable numeric count, but the set is unbalanced: only one tool actually serves the ANTT vehicle domain, while six are generic platform/admin utilities. This makes the server feel padded rather than purpose-built.
The core consultation workflow is present, and platform tools cover authentication, connection, and billing. However, the ANTT domain surface is very thin—a single query operation—so deeper vehicle-related operations or query variants are largely missing.