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 value by specifying the exact response fields (authenticated, pending) and the presence of connect_url for missing credentials, providing behavioral context 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers the two main states without unnecessary detail.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary outcomes (connected vs missing credentials) sufficiently. It doesn't exhaust all edge cases but is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.
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 and description need no additional parameter explanation. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty object), and the description clarifies the tool's behavior without needing to describe 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, and differentiates between fully connected state and missing credentials. It uses specific verbs ('returns') and describes distinct outcomes, distinguishing it from siblings like 'authenticate'.
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 say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides conditional behaviors (all providers connected vs missing credentials) but lacks direct guidance on selection criteria.
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 has a distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, JUCESP consultation, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit info. Descriptions are detailed and clearly differentiate the tools, leaving no ambiguity about when to use each.
Tool names are inconsistent in style and language: some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are noun_verb (toolkit_info), one is a long snake_case Portuguese phrase (jucesp_certidao_simplificada_consultar), and others mix English conventions. The pattern is unpredictable, making it harder to guess tool names.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the majority are generic platform-level utilities unrelated to the server's stated JUCESP purpose. The one domain-specific tool feels like an afterthought, and the set could be trimmed or better scoped.
For the core JUCESP certificate consultation, the single tool covers the entire operation (query by CNPJ, NIRE, or name). The included platform tools handle surrounding needs like authentication, billing, and marketplace discovery, so no major dead ends exist. Minor gaps like explicit certificate history or multiple formats are absent, but not critical.