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 valuable context beyond that: it explains that it returns connection URLs and how the response varies (authenticated true vs connect_url), which is not in the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, though it leaves ambiguity about partial connection states.
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 sentences: the first delivers the core purpose, the second explains behavior in two key scenarios. There is no fluff or repetition; every sentence earns its place.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description covers the main return values (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and their meaning. It could be more explicit about partial connection cases, but for a simple no-parameter tool, it's adequate.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage (100%). The description correctly omits param details; nothing more is needed. With no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no unnecessary info.
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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also outlines specific conditions (all providers connected vs missing credentials) that distinguish it from siblings like authenticate, which perform actions. The verb 'Returns' is specific and the resource is clearly connection status.
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 when to use this tool (to check connection status) and describes the outcome in different states. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say 'use authenticate for authentication,' so while context is clear, exclusions are not explicitly 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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: authenticate handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace finds and runs other MCPs, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, toolkit_info reports toolkit state, and the domain tool consults fines. No two tools could be easily confused.
Tool names mix styles: verb-based names (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long descriptive domain name (pref_pa_belem_multas_consultar). No consistent verb_noun pattern or style coherence.
There are 7 tools, which is a reasonable count, but the vast majority are generic platform utilities (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) unrelated to the server's apparent purpose of handling Belém traffic fines. Only one tool actually performs the domain function, making the set feel like a platform wrapper rather than a focused domain server.
The domain of traffic fines is severely under-covered: only a single consultation tool exists, with no create, update, or delete operations. The other tools address platform management but do not contribute to the stated purpose of the server, leaving the domain surface incomplete.