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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable detail about output shape: authenticated:true with empty pending[] in the connected state and connect_url/per-install URLs when credentials are missing. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful conditional behavior.
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 ('Returns connection status and URLs') followed by the two relevant output cases. Every sentence adds meaningful information.
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 covers the main return scenarios and clarifies pending[], authenticated, and connect_url behavior. It is slightly thin on the exact authenticated value and pending contents in the partially connected/missing-credentials case, but it is adequate for a zero-parameter status tool.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (100% coverage). Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, no additional parameter explanation is needed.
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?
Description states it 'Returns connection status and URLs,' identifying a specific read/status resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling authenticate by focusing on status inspection rather than credential setup.
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 conditional scenarios ('when all providers are connected' vs 'when credentials are missing') imply a status-check use case, but the description never explicitly says when to use connect instead of authenticate or other siblings. There are no exclusion statements or named alternatives, so usage guidance is only implicit.
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 distinct: platform utilities (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) vs. one domain-specific query (der_pr_cnd_consultar). However, 'authenticate' and 'connect' overlap slightly in purpose, and 'marketplace' could be confused with 'toolkit_info' regarding MCP discovery.
Tool names mix languages (English and Portuguese: 'der_pr_cnd_consultar') and inconsistent patterns: some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a different style (der_pr_cnd_consultar). This inconsistency makes it harder to anticipate functionality.
The server has 7 tools, which is within a reasonable range, but the purpose is ambiguous: the server name suggests a specific domain (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) yet the majority of tools are generic MCP platform utilities. This mismatch makes the tool set feel scattershot rather than focused.
For the stated domain (Certidão Negativa de Débitos), only a single consultation tool is provided, lacking other expected operations such as issuance, validation, or status checks. Meanwhile, the generic platform utilities are not directly relevant to the domain, leaving the server's core purpose under-covered.