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, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds value by explaining conditional output (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), which is behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradiction found.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and each sentence adds essential information about conditional outputs. No wasted words 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?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the presence of clear annotations, the description is complete for an agent. It covers what the tool does, the two possible outcomes, and what the response includes, leaving no critical gaps for safe usage.
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 and an empty schema, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning; it correctly focuses on output behavior.
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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also distinguishes behavior for two states (all connected vs. missing credentials), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' which performs authentication.
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 implies usage as a status-checking tool (checking connection and URLs), but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. It lacks any 'use when' or 'do not use' instructions, so the agent must infer from 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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: 'authenticate' and 'connect' both deal with login/connection status, while 'marketplace' is a sprawling meta-tool that covers searching, describing, invoking, installing, and managing prompts—it overlaps with 'report_bug' (feedback) and 'show_version' (platform info) in providing platform functionality. The DETRAN-specific tool is distinct, but the rest are not cleanly separated.
Tool names are a mix of single-word verbs ('connect', 'authenticate', 'marketplace'), snake_case Portuguese for the DETRAN tool, and hyphenated terms like 'report_bug' and 'show_version'. The naming is inconsistent in style and doesn't follow a predictable verb_noun pattern, making it harder to infer what each tool does from its name alone.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range for a server, but the count is misleading: the 'marketplace' tool aggregates many distinct capabilities (search, describe, invoke, install, prompts) into one tool, which inflates the apparent coverage while the actual set of distinct functions is smaller and less cohesive.
The server's primary domain appears to be querying DETRAN AM fines, but aside from the single consultar tool, there's no support for other lifecycle operations (e.g., payment, dispute, or history). The other tools are platform utilities, not DETRAN-specific, so the surface is incomplete for the stated purpose of the server.