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?
It explicitly describes the output for different states: authenticated:true and empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate read-only and idempotent 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 concise, two sentences, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the expected behavior and return values under different conditions, making it complete for an agent to use.
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 no parameters, so the description adds value by explaining the output logic, which is the only meaningful information beyond the empty schema.
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: returning connection status and URLs. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on connection state rather than data queries.
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 implicitly guides usage by describing behavior under two conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), which suggests using it to check connection status before other operations, though it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool.
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 pncp_* tools are mostly differentiated by data type, but there is real overlap: pncp_buscar, pncp_listar, and pncp_oportunidades all search licitações, while pncp_detalhe and pncp_processo both return full details and pncp_resultado overlaps with pncp_detalhe(resultado=true). Detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily pick the wrong search or detail tool.
Naming is inconsistent: English platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) sit alongside Portuguese pncp_* names, with some verbs (buscar, listar) and mostly nouns (atas, contratos, detalhe, processo, texto). There is no single predictable verb_noun or resource_action convention.
19 tools is in the heavy range and includes 6 generic platform/account tools that are unrelated to the PNCP procurement domain. The 13 pncp_* tools are defensible for a broad read-only procurement API, but several overlap enough that the count feels slightly bloated rather than tightly scoped.
The PNCP side covers the core read-only procurement lifecycle well: keyword search, value-ranked listing, opportunities, full detail, edital text, document downloads, winners, contracts, atas, historical data, PCA, and buyer organs. Minor gaps exist, such as losing bids/lances being explicitly unavailable and the marketplace features being bundled into one overloaded tool instead of separate ones.