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?
The description adds meaningful conditional behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that when credentials are missing, connect_url and per-install URLs are returned, and that a fully connected state returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds specific behavioral information. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 with strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers the return behavior and conditional cases. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by explaining both connected and missing-credential states.
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?
With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'), and further distinguishes itself by naming exact conditional outputs like authenticated:true and connect_url. This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as authenticate and show_version.
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 as a status-checking tool by explaining what it returns in different connection states. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like authenticate, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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 purposes: the rede_* tools cover specific financial data (charges, account, extract, receivables, sales), while authenticate/connect/toolkit_info handle authentication/status with some overlap but distinct focuses. The marketplace tool is a multi-action mega-tool, but its description clearly delineates between search, describe, invoke, install, and subscription actions, reducing ambiguity.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), others use Portuguese nouns (rede_cobrancas, rede_conta, rede_extrato), and two use a mix of noun and verb (rede_vendas_listar, rede_vendas_resumo). The rede_* prefix provides some consistency, but the overall pattern lacks a uniform verb_noun structure, making it harder to predict tool names.
With 12 tools, the count is reasonable for a platform that combines toolkit management and Rede-specific financial queries. The marketplace tool consolidates many actions into one, which keeps the count manageable. Slightly fewer tools might be cleaner, but it's not excessive given the breadth of functionality.
The server covers the essential lifecycle for both toolkit management (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, cancel) and Rede financial data (list sales, summary, charges, account, extract, receivables). Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit logout or disconnect tool, and the marketplace bundles many actions that could be split, but the overall surface is comprehensive for its intended use.