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 and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying the output behavior in two distinct states (all connected vs. missing credentials), mentioning fields like authenticated, pending, and connect_url. This goes beyond the bare annotations, though it doesn't detail full response structure.
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 output, and then providing conditional details. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior. No redundant fluff.
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?
With no output schema, the description needs to explain return values, and it does by mentioning 'authenticated:true', 'pending[]', and 'connect_url'. It also covers two main scenarios. While not exhaustive, it is sufficient for a simple read-only status tool, especially given the annotations indicate non-destructive, idempotent behavior.
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 document. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the baseline score for zero parameters is 4. Description adds no parameter info, which 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.' It distinctly separates from siblings like 'authenticate' (which performs authentication) and the various 'consultas_*' tools (which query external data). The description also specifies the two possible outcomes based on connection state, adding specificity.
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 on when to use this tool—when checking connection status and obtaining URLs. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or name alternatives, but the role is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from 'authenticate' or data-query tools. No explicit when/alternative guidance, but the action is unambiguous.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The consulta tools target specific databases (CND, FGTS, trademarks, sanctions) with descriptive names, and the administrative tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.) are unrelated to the queries. No two tools appear to perform the same function.
The majority of tools follow a consistent 'consultas_' prefix with descriptive suffixes, but the administrative tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) break the pattern with plain verb/noun names. This creates two distinct naming conventions within the same server.
At 29 tools, the set is bloated. The inclusion of a full marketplace tool and generic admin/version/feedback utilities goes beyond the core 'consultas' purpose, making the count feel excessive. The query tools themselves are numerous but could be trimmed.
The set covers a wide range of Brazilian data consultations, from debts and tax status to trademarks, patents, and sanctions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no general court case search beyond SEEU), but the core domain is well covered and agents can accomplish most common query tasks.