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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the output format under different states (authenticated:true and empty pending[], or connect_url for missing credentials). However, it does not detail the return structure beyond that, and since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and the key behavioral variance. There is no redundancy or filler. Every sentence adds useful information, making it an excellent example of conciseness for a zero-parameter tool.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and the strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the states of the connection and the meaning of connect_url. It could mention what 'authenticated:true' means for the pending array or list the providers, but those details are minor. Overall, it is complete for its intended use.
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 description does not need to explain any. The parameter_semantics dimension defaults to a high score because there is no parameter schema to augment. The provided description adds no parameter info, but that is not needed. Thus, giving a 4 is justified as there is no ambiguity.
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 specifies what the output looks like under different conditions (all providers connected vs missing credentials). While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, its function is distinct enough from the listed siblings (e.g., authenticate, marketplace) to be clear.
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 this tool (when checking connection status) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from the 'authenticate' sibling. It would benefit from saying something like 'Use this to check if setup is complete; use authenticate to initiate connection.' However, the context is clear enough for basic usage.
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 clearly separated (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), but authenticate and connect overlap around credentials/connection status, and marketplace's invoke capability could be confused with the BCB query tool for running data lookups. The line between 'using the platform' and 'querying BCB data' is not crisp.
Naming conventions are mixed: bare verbs (connect), English verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one Portuguese noun_verb construction (bcb_cotacoes_consultar). There is no consistent pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count by number, but six of them are generic platform/utility tools (marketplace, connect, authenticate, etc.) with only one BCB-specific tool. The set is not tightly scoped to the server's stated purpose of BCB quotes.
For the actual BCB domain, only one query tool exists; it may cover basic quote lookups but there is no dedicated tool for enumerating available series, currencies, or historical ranges. The core read path exists, but the domain surface feels thin.