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 destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds value by explaining the behavior in different scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't detail the exact structure of the return payload or how to interpret the URLs, but this is acceptable for a read-only status tool.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the tool's purpose and the key scenarios. It is front-loaded with the core function, and every clause adds value without fluff or repetition.
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 tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is complete. It gives the agent enough to know what to expect in terms of response (auth status and URLs) and the conditions for different outcomes. The annotations provide safety context, so no further details are needed.
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?
There are 0 parameters)Skip? Ha! But the schema has no properties w/ 0 params, so the baseline is 4. Since the description explains the output (not params) because there are none, it fully covers what the agent needs to know to invoke the tool. No parameter information 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?
The description states the tool returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from siblings like authenticate (which likely initiates connection) and toolkit_info (which provides general info). It is specific about the resource (connection status) and the outcome.
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 when to use it (to check connection status) and provides context about the return values (authenticated, pending[], connect_url), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, given the tool's simplicity and the clear distinction from siblings, the guidance is adequate.
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.
The DETRAN query tool is clear, but `marketplace` is a meta-tool that overlaps with `connect`, `authenticate`, `toolkit_info`, and even `report_bug`. Since multiple tools can handle connection URLs, listing callable tools, reporting bugs, or running the same DETRAN query, an agent has ambiguous entry points for the same capability.
Names are mixed across styles: single tokens (`authenticate`, `connect`, `marketplace`), verb_noun (`report_bug`, `show_version`), and `detran_ms_multas_consultar`, which places the verb at the end. The set has no consistent naming convention, making the handful of tools feel more arbitrary than organized.
Seven tools is a reasonable raw number, but the the set is not well scoped: six are generic platform utilities and only one tool is actually DETRAN-specific. For a server named 'DETRAN MS: Multas', the real DETRAN surface is thin and the platform 'platform furniture' carries most of the tool count.
For the read-only consultation scope, `detran_ms_multas_consultar` covers the core operation, and the platform tools cover auth, connectivity, versioning, bug reporting, and marketplace access. Extra DETRAN workflows such as payment or appeals are not represented, but they are also not promised by the tool descriptions.