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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the return values in different states (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs connect_url and per-install URLs), which is beyond annotation scope.
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 tightly written sentences cover all necessary information without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides conditional outcomes.
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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the two meaningful states (connected vs missing credentials) and what URLs are returned. It doesn't mention potential errors or pagination, but these are not needed given the tool's simplicity.
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 the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but the baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and there is nothing to improve upon.
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, and distinguishes its purpose from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status retrieval rather than action. It also specifies the two possible outcomes (all connected vs missing credentials), making the purpose unmistakable.
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: it's for checking connection status and getting URLs when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like authenticate or toolkit_info, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not fully explicit.
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 domain tools (capivara_dossie, capivara_resolver, capivara_registrar_consentimento) are clearly distinct, but the platform tools (connect, marketplace, toolkit_info, authenticate, report_bug, show_version) overlap in lifecycle management responsibilities. Notably, marketplace's invoke capability can also 'consulta um CPF', creating ambiguity with capivara_dossie for the same user intent.
Naming is split between Portuguese domain tools with the capivara_ prefix and generic English platform tools (connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). Within the domain tools, capivara_dossie uses a noun while capivara_resolver and capivara_registrar_consentimento use verbs, breaking any consistent verb_noun pattern.
At 9 tools, the count is within the ideal range. However, the server bundles platform administration tools (connect, marketplace, toolkit_info, report_bug, show_version, authenticate) with domain-specific investigation tools, which inflates the apparent surface area — though several platform tools could be consolidated.
The domain lifecycle is well covered: identity discovery (capivara_resolver), consent registration (capivara_registrar_consentimento), and the main dossier query (capivara_dossie) form a coherent workflow. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit tool to update or revoke consent, and no history of past investigations, but these are edge cases on the core flow.