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, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining what the response contains (fields like authenticated, pending, connect_url) and differentiates between two states. There is no contradiction with 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, zero filler. The description is front-loaded with 'Returns connection status and URLs' and then clarifies states. Every word adds value.
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, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully captures the tool's behavior. It explains the two possible outcomes (connected or missing credentials) and what each returns, which is enough for an agent to use 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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since no properties). The description adds meaning by explaining the return values and state semantics, which is helpful even without parameters.
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 returns connection status and URLs, and describes the difference between connected state (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and missing credentials (connect_url and per-install URLs). It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate which likely initiates connection, though it doesn't explicitly name it.
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: to check connection status before proceeding. It contrasts states when credentials are missing versus connected. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., authenticate), but the semantic is clear for an agent deciding whether to check or initiate.
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.
Several tools serve overlapping meta-purposes: 'authenticate' and 'connect' both handle connection/auth flows, while 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'show_version', and 'toolkit_info' are generic platform utilities that could apply to any server, not specific to the PRF débitos domain. This creates confusion about when to use which tool, especially for an agent expecting a focused domain toolset.
The one domain-specific tool 'prf_debitos_consultar' uses a descriptive prefix, but the other tools are generic verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) with no consistent pattern or domain alignment. The mixing of specific domain naming with generic platform utility names breaks any coherent convention.
At 7 tools total, the count is reasonable for a server, but it is misleading: only 1 tool actually serves the stated purpose (PRF débitos), while 6 are generic MCP platform utilities (auth, catalog, version info, bug reporting) that could belong to a separate meta-server. For the PRF domain, 1 domain tool feels thin.
The server claims to be about 'Débitos' (debt/fines) from the Polícia Rodoviária Federal, but besides a single 'consultar' (query) tool, there is no coverage for common lifecycle operations (e.g., listing different debt types, checking payment status, getting details, or handling errors). The remaining tools are unrelated platform meta-functions, leaving the stated domain severely under-covered.