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 disclose readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by explaining the two distinct response scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) and the fields returned (authenticated, pending, connect_url), enhancing transparency beyond the 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 only two sentences, effectively front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every clause adds meaningful information 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?
For a simple status-checking tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description fully explains the different return states. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect without additional elaboration.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the empty schema matches the tool's no-input design.
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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by indicating this is a status check rather than an authentication action.
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 for checking connection status but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving some ambiguity.
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.
authenticate and connect overlap on credential/connection territory, and marketplace is an overloaded mega-tool that also contains report_bug, list_tools, install, subscribe, and connect-related flows, duplicating several dedicated tools. Only dprf_nada_consta_consultar has a clearly unique, non-overlapping purpose.
The tool names are a mix of English imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), English noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long Portuguese resource-style name (dprf_nada_consta_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun or language pattern to guide an agent's selection.
Seven tools is not a large count, but only one tool is actually domain-specific to the DPRF Nada Consta purpose. The other six are generic platform/management tools, so the server feels like a broad platform with a single domain query bolted on rather than a focused domain MCP.
The core flow is covered: authenticate/connect for access, dprf_nada_consta_consultar for the actual inqueria, and marketplace for payment/top-up. There is no deeper history or detail-level management surface, but for a read-only official consultation service the primary workflow is present.