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?
Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds behavioral detail by explaining the response when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing, making the tool's behavior more transparent.
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 concise and directly states the functionality in two sentences without extraneous detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
The description provides insight into return values and conditional scenarios, but does not enumerate all possible response fields or error cases. However, given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, read-only status), the information is sufficient for basic understanding.
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 no parameters, so the schema fully covers them and the description does not need to elaborate. The description does not add parameter-specific information since none exist, but the baseline for zero parameters is sufficient.
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 returns connection status and URLs, and specifies conditional outcomes (authenticated true vs. missing credentials). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from generic status checks.
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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus other tools like authenticate or show_version. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
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 clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version display, toolkit state, and the single DETRAN query. No two tools overlap in function, so an agent can easily tell them apart.
All names use snake_case and are lowercase, but the pattern is inconsistent: sometimes verb-only (authenticate, connect), sometimes verb+noun (show_version, report_bug), sometimes noun+verb (detran_pi_multas_consultar), and sometimes noun-only (marketplace, toolkit_info). There's no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
7 tools is within the typical range, but the majority are generic platform utilities (authenticate, marketplace, etc.) unrelated to the server's stated purpose (DETRAN PI fines). Only one domain-specific tool exists, so the count is not well-aligned with the apparent scope.
The only domain tool is detran_pi_multas_consultar, which handles a single query operation. There are no other fine-related operations (e.g., list, payment, history), so for the declared purpose the coverage is minimal. The additional platform tools don't address the domain.