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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable conditional behavior: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when fully connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. No contradictions.
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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful behavioral detail; no filler or redundancy.
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 parameterless read-only status tool, the description is complete: it covers the happy path, the missing-credentials case, and the returned fields. With strong annotations and no output schema, this is sufficient guidance.
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 schema carries no parameter burden. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than inputs.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the resource ('connection status and URLs'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status inspection rather than performing authentication.
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: call this to check connection status and obtain URLs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info', nor does it mention exclusions.
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 clearly distinct responsibilities, and the certidão query is fully separated from platform operations. The only real ambiguity is between connect and toolkit_info, which both report status/connection-related information, and marketplace overlaps slightly by offering many internal management actions.
The utility names are generally predictable short verbs or noun phrases, but the style is mixed. marketplace is a bare noun, toolkit_info uses an underscore pattern, and mpt_ce_cnf_consultar switches to a Portuguese domain-specific convention, so no single naming rule holds across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable total for a small MCP server and does not feel bloated. However, most of the tools are platform/admin utilities, with only one domain-specific certidão operation, so the count slightly over-represents the actual MPT CE capability.
For a read-only Brazilian official certificate lookup, mpt_ce_cnf_consultar is the core operation and the surrounding tools cover auth, connection, payment, and feedback. Minor gaps exist, such as query history or explicit certificate-file download, but an agent can complete the essential workflow.