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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to cover those. It adds valuable context about the response format: when all providers are connected, it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]; when credentials are missing, it returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond the annotation coverage and clarifies 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?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences that directly state the main output and the two possible scenarios. It front-loads the primary purpose and avoids any unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the primary return value (connection status and URLs) and explains the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials). No additional information is needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.
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 zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning. The schema is trivially complete (100% coverage with no properties). With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing 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 purpose: it returns connection status and URLs. It specifies the resource (connection status) and the verb (returns), and distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status rather than the 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 provides context for when the tool is useful (checking connection status and retrieving URLs when credentials are missing), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies usage but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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.
The single domain tool is clearly distinct, but the platform tools overlap: `authenticate`/`connect` both relate to connection state, and `marketplace`/`toolkit_info` both describe installed or callable tools. The long descriptions help, but the boundaries are not crisp, especially since `marketplace` also bundles sub-actions like `report_bug` that exist as a standalone tool.
Names mix one-word verbs (`connect`, `authenticate`), noun-only names (`marketplace`), snake_case verb+object compounds (`report_bug`, `show_version`), and a long Portuguese-style domain name (`git_cidadao_pr_multas_consultar`). There is no consistent naming convention or language across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable raw count, but the set is really six platform utilities plus one domain-specific fines query. For a server named after a specific Brazilian fines product, the tool list feels padded and not tightly scoped to the apparent purpose.
The core operation, consulting official Brazilian fine information, is covered by `git_cidadao_pr_multas_consultar`, and the generic utilities handle auth, status, and billing-related flows. However, there are no other direct domain operations, and managing prepaid credits or query history is left to the catch-all `marketplace` tool.