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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about state-dependent responses (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_urls when credentials missing), which is not captured by annotations and aids the agent in understanding expected outputs.
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 purpose, and every phrase adds value. It efficiently covers both the happy path and the missing-credentials scenario without 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 no output schema, the description explains the return values for both connection states, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what this tool will do. It covers the key scenarios and does not leave critical gaps.
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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics, and it adds meaningful context about return values instead, 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 'Returns connection status and URLs', a specific verb+resource that distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than action. It also explains the two major outcomes (authenticated vs missing credentials), making the purpose 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 provides clear context: use this to check if all providers are connected and retrieve URLs when credentials are missing. It implies the use case but does not explicitly contrast with the 'authenticate' sibling tool or state when not to use it.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: authenticate handles token login, connect checks provider status, detran_df_debitos_consultar queries debts, marketplace searches/executes MCPs, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, and toolkit_info lists toolkit state. There is minor overlap between authenticate and connect (both deal with connection/auth) and between marketplace and toolkit_info (both involve MCP discovery), but the descriptions are clear enough to avoid major confusion.
All tool names are lowercase with underscores, but they do not follow a consistent pattern. Some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and detran_df_debitos_consultar mixes a domain prefix with a verb at the end, using Portuguese rather than English. This inconsistency reduces predictability.
With 7 tools, the count is not extreme, but the scope is mismatched to the server's stated purpose ('DETRAN DF: Débitos'). Only one tool is actually related to DETRAN debts; the other six are generic platform utilities (authentication, marketplace, feedback, etc.). This feels like a general-purpose MCP platform server rather than a focused debt-consultation server, making the tool set inappropriate for the apparent domain.
For a server named 'Débidos', the only domain-specific operation is detran_df_debitos_consultar, which provides a single consultation action. There are no other debt-related operations such as listing, filtering, or paying debts, and the rest of the tools are unrelated to the domain. This is a severely incomplete surface for the stated purpose.