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 annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses specific behavioral outputs: 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' when connected, and 'connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs' when credentials are missing. This adds valuable context about response contents.
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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence provides meaningful detail without redundancy.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior by covering both possible outcomes (all connected vs. missing credentials). It is complete for the tool's scope.
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 description is not required to explain parameter semantics. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 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's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'authenticate', which presumably performs authentication rather than status checking.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to check if all providers are connected or to retrieve connect URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident from the context.
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 clear, distinct purpose, and the descriptions prevent direct overlap. The only slight ambiguity is between authenticate and connect, but both are adequately differentiated. However, the mix of generic platform tools with a single domain tool may confuse an agent about which to use for certificate tasks.
Tool names are highly inconsistent: some are verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), one is a long Portuguese snake_case (certidao_debitos_pf_consultar), and others mix verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version). The language mixing and lack of a uniform convention make the naming chaotic.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server's name suggests a focused domain service, and only one tool actually serves that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the count feel bloated for the apparent purpose and creating a scope mismatch.
For the stated domain of certidão de débitos, only a single consult operation is provided, with no supporting tools for history, downloads, or related management. The platform utilities do not address domain-specific gaps, leaving the coverage severely incomplete for the server's implied purpose.