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 provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds context on response details (authenticated, pending, connect_url) without contradicting 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key purpose. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Adequately explains the main behavior and output states. Could mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple status check the coverage is sufficient.
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?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no additional parameter info, which is acceptable for zero-parameter tools.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, and distinguishes two scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). This distinguishes it from sibling 'authenticate' which performs auth.
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?
Implicitly suggests using this to check connection status before other operations, but does not explicitly state when-not or alternatives like 'authenticate'.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, especially the f360_* family which separates listing, detail, and report generation per resource. However, 'authenticate' and 'connect' both deal with connection state, and 'f360_list_accounts' vs 'f360_listar_planos_contas' could be confused without reading descriptions closely.
Naming is inconsistent: generic tools use simple English verbs (connect, show_version), while financial tools mix English (list_accounts) and Portuguese (listar_notas, obter_xml) with inconsistent verb forms and prefixes. The patterns are not predictable across the full set.
At 19 tools, the set is borderline heavy. Six tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are platform-level utilities unrelated to the financial domain, inflating the count; the remaining 13 financial tools are well-scoped for a read-only reporting API.
The financial tools cover listing and detail retrieval for core entities (accounts, notes, people, chart of accounts) and generate/download reports. However, there are no create/update/delete operations, and no getter for accounts or other entities, limiting the surface to read-only reporting.