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 mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful state-dependent behavior: when all providers are connected it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], and when credentials are missing it returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs. This goes beyond the annotations, though partial connection states are left ambiguous.
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 only two sentences: the first states the primary purpose and the second gives conditional outcomes. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler words.
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 zero-parameter, simple status-checking tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the main return values and the two key states (fully connected and missing credentials). Combined with annotations, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 0 parameters and full schema coverage, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema already makes clear that no input is required, and the description does not need to add further parameter detail.
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 'Returns connection status and URLs' with a specific verb and resource. The conditional results distinguish it from sibling tools like authenticate (action-oriented) and show_version/toolkit_info (different information).
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 by describing when to call it to check connection status and shows outcomes under different conditions, but it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives like authenticate. Usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and authenticate also deals with credentials. The marketplace tool is a catch-all for many actions (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, etc.), making it hard to predict what it does from its name alone. The domain-specific tool (mpmt_procedimentos_consultar) is distinct, but the platform tools blur together.
Naming is inconsistent across the set: verb_noun (show_version, report_bug), bare verbs (connect, authenticate), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese phrase (mpmt_procedimentos_consultar). There is no coherent pattern in style or language, making the tool names feel ad hoc.
At 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but one tool (marketplace) is overloaded with dozens of sub-actions, making the real surface much larger and harder to grasp. The server mixes platform administration tools with a single domain operation, which feels unbalanced for its stated focus on procedures.
For the domain of consulting public ministry procedures, the single consultation tool is functional but minimal—there are no related operations like history, PDF export, or batch queries. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) cover administration broadly, but the overall purpose of the server is unclear, making it hard to assess whether gaps exist.