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=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the exact response structure (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and the behavior when credentials are missing (returns connect_url and per-install URLs). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting any annotations.
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 core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and then elaborates on edge cases. No filler or redundant information – every sentence adds value.
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?
Given it's a stateless status check with no parameters enemies, the description covers all relevant scenarios: fully connected state and missing credentials state. It explains the return content (authenticated flag, pending array, connect URLs) sufficiently. No output schema exists, so the description carries the responsibility, and it does so admirably.
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 as per the input schemaretry, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to explain, the description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior and return values, which fully compensates for the absence of parameter details.
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 function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection status) and the action (returns), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'toolkit_info'. The behavior is unambiguous.
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 implicitly guides usage by indicating this tool is for checking connection status and getting URLs. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, but the siblings are clearly unrelated (authenticate, report_bug, etc.), so the context is clear. A minor gap: no explicit 'use this when...' statement.
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.
Several tools have overlapping responsibilities: connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status details, and marketplace includes report_bug and list_tools functionality that duplicates dedicated tools. Only der_sp_multas_consultar has a clearly unique domain purpose.
Tool names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), snake_case domain terms (der_sp_multas_consultar), and noun-style commands (marketplace, toolkit_info), with no consistent verb_noun convention. The naming feels ad hoc rather than patterned.
Seven tools is within a reasonable numeric range, but the server's scope is split between one domain-specific query and several generic platform utilities. The marketplace tool also packs many suboperations into a single megatool, making the apparent tool count misleading.
For a server named 'Multas e Recursos', the only domain tool is a single consultation action; there is no appeal/recursos workflow or broader fine lifecycle coverage. The remaining tools are platform management utilities rather than domain features.