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 description adds value by detailing the conditional return fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) without contradicting annotations. It provides behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.
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, then conditional details. Every word earns its place; no filler or 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 zero-parameter status tool with good annotations, the description adequately covers the key states and return fields. It doesn't enumerate every possible field but covers main cases, sufficient for 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 there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is 100% (no parameters), and the description adds meaning by clarifying the response structure based on connection state, which is helpful but not required for parameters.
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, with specific conditions (all providers connected → authenticated:true and empty pending[]; missing credentials → connect_url and per-install URLs). This distinguishes it from siblings like `authenticate` and `toolkit_info` by focusing on status/URL retrieval.
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?
It implicitly tells when to use: to check connection status and get URLs when needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the conditional behavior clarifies the expected output in different states, giving context-sufficient guidance.
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 cigam_* tools target a distinct ERP area (AP, AR, sales, purchases, inventory, cash), and descriptions clarify their boundaries. However, the sales-reporting cluster (vendas, vendas_por_dia, vendas_resumo, resultado, ranking_clientes) has overlapping period-summary purposes, and cigam_estoque overlaps with REL_610 in cigam_relatorio, creating a few plausible misselections.
The 21 domain tools mostly follow a cigam_<snake_case noun> pattern, giving a recognizable prefix, but they mix Portuguese and English for the same operation (cigam_listar_lojas vs cigam_list_accounts) and mix noun-tools with verb-tools (consulta/relatorio/job vs listar). The 7 infrastructure tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) use a completely different unprefixed English style, so there are effectively three naming conventions.
At 28 tools the server exceeds the heavy threshold, and the count is padded by a fragmented sales-reporting family (four-plus tools all summarizing sales) plus a monolithic marketplace tool that bundles search, describe, invoke, install, subscription, and prompt-library operations. The broad ERP domain justifies many tools, but this set would benefit from consolidation.
As a read-only reporting/advisory adapter, the surface covers the main ERP workflows: sales, purchases, returns, invoices, AP/AR, delinquency, cash flow, payment mix, stock, financial entries, results, and custom reports. Notable gaps are a customer master list, product names in stock data, and per-document detail lookups, but the generic cigam_consulta and cigam_relatorio provide workarounds.