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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies conditional outputs (authenticated:true and empty pending[] when connected, or connect_url when credentials are missing). This helps the agent predict response variations without being redundant with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail. No fluff or repetition of annotations.
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?
This is a simple no-parameter status tool with no output schema, so the description carries the full burden for return-value understanding. It covers the main states (all connected vs missing credentials) and includes the key fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url). However, it doesn't enumerate all possible response fields or the structure of 'per-install URLs', but given the tool's low complexity, this is nearly complete.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema covers everything (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameter syntax or values. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return behavior rather than nonexistent 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 returns connection status and URLs, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status, and the conditional details about authenticated:true and connect_url provide concrete scope.
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 this is a status check tool, usable when you need to know connection state or get URLs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it relates to alternative tools like 'authenticate'. No exclusions or direct comparisons are provided, only implicit context.
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 have distinct purposes: authenticate handles login tokens, connect shows status, fgts_regularidade_consultar performs the actual FGTS query, and report_bug/show_version/toolkit_info are clearly separate. However, authenticate and connect both deal with authentication/connection status, and marketplace overlaps somewhat with toolkit_info in listing available tools, creating minor ambiguity.
Naming is highly inconsistent: tools mix bare verbs (connect, authenticate), snake_case with a Portuguese verb at the end (fgts_regularidade_consultar), compound nouns (toolkit_info, marketplace), and verb_noun styles with underscores (report_bug, show_version). No consistent pattern or language convention is followed.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a server, but the set feels like a grab-bag of platform management utilities rather than a cohesive domain. Given the server name 'Regularidade FGTS', most tools are unrelated to FGTS, making the scope feel bloated with generic infrastructure tools and underweighted on actual FGTS functionality.
For a server ostensibly about FGTS certificates, only one tool (fgts_regularidade_consultar) addresses that domain, leaving no other operations like validation, history, or batch processing. The platform tools are complete for managing MCPs, but they don't contribute to the stated FGTS purpose, creating a significant gap in domain coverage.