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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining conditional response states (authenticated:true vs connect_url) and what triggers each state, painting a fuller picture of the tool's behavior.
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?
Two compact sentences convey the core behavior and key conditional results without unnecessary words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful information.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential states (all providers connected vs missing credentials) and what the response contains. The tool is simple, and the description is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.
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 schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies for no-parameter tools, and the description correctly avoids discussing parameters.
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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It provides specific conditional outcomes (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url for missing credentials), which distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and easyjur_api_status.
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 the tool (checking connection status), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like authenticate or easyjur_api_status. Usage context is inferred rather than directly stated.
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 targets a distinct resource or sub-resource with clear CRUD actions. The easyjur_ tools are separated by entity (agenda, processo, pessoa, etc.) and by action (create, get, list), while sub-resource tools like easyjur_processo_partes or easyjur_agenda_comentarios have unambiguous scopes. Platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) serve disjoint meta-purposes, so no ambiguity.
Most easyjur_ tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_agenda, get_processo, list_despesas), but several break it with noun_subresource names (easyjur_agenda_comentarios, easyjur_processo_financeiros) and the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) use plain nouns without the prefix. This mixture of conventions makes the set less predictable.
47 tools is well above the threshold for a focused MCP server, even for a comprehensive legal management domain. The inclusion of platform meta-tools inflates the count, and many entities (agenda, processo) have multiple sub-resource readers. This volume risks overwhelming agents and slowing tool selection.
The tool surface provides create, get, and list for each entity, but there are no update or delete operations for any entity. Sub-resources (documentos, partes, mensagens, etc.) are read-only. The only workaround mentioned is creating agenda items to record movements, which is a workaround, not a real update. This is a significant gap that will cause dead ends for workflows requiring modification or removal.