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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful conditional behavior: returns 'authenticated:true' and empty 'pending[]' when connected, or 'connect_url' URLs when credentials are missing. This goes 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence adds meaningful detail about the conditional behavior.
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?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior for both relevant scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). The tool is simple and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and call it correctly.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameters, since none exist to explain.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by being a read-only status check rather than an 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 clear context: it reports connection status, with conditional behavior for connected vs missing credentials. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would know when to call it for status checking.
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 JUCESP document tool is clearly distinct, and most platform tools have unique purposes, but the `marketplace` mega-tool overlaps with several others (connect, toolkit_info, report_bug) and makes boundaries fuzzy. An agent could be confused about whether to call `marketplace` or the more specific standalone tools for the same underlying actions.
Tool names mix English imperative verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`, `report_bug`, `show_version`), nouns (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), and a Portuguese snake_case domain tool (`jucesp_documento_consultar`). There is no consistent verb_noun or action_resource pattern across the set.
Seven tools is not inherently excessive, but six of them are generic MCP.AI platform/infrastructure tools unrelated to the server's stated JUCESP document-download purpose. The set is over-scoped for what should be a focused single-domain server, with only one tool actually performing the domain operation.
For the narrow stated purpose of downloading a JUCESP document from NIRE/registration number, `jucesp_documento_consultar` covers the core workflow directly. The main gap is the lack of any lookup/search tool for documents when the user does not already know the required identifiers, but that is a minor workaround gap for this specific domain.