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?
Beyond the readOnly and idempotent hints, the description discloses the exact response behavior: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This gives precise expectations without any 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds meaningful detail about return values. No unnecessary information is present.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool without an output schema, the description is complete. It explains both possible outcomes and what URLs are returned, leaving no significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.
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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed; it correctly focuses on output behavior.
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, with specific return values for different connection states. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by its read-only status-check purpose.
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 provides clear context on when the tool is useful: to check whether all providers are connected or to retrieve connection URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the conditional behavior implies its role as a status-checking 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.
Several tools overlap: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace also lists installed tools. authenticate and connect both handle login/credentials, making it difficult to choose the right tool for a given authentication task.
The tool names mix verb-based (authenticate, connect, report_bug), noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese compound (simples_nacional_consultar). There is no consistent naming pattern or language convention across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but several serve overlapping platform-management purposes (connect, toolkit_info, marketplace) and only one tool relates to the nominal domain of Simples Nacional. The count is acceptable, but the set feels padded with utilities that could be consolidated.
The server's main purpose, consulting Simples Nacional, is covered by a single tool with only one operation (simples_nacional_consultar). There is no broader domain coverage (e.g., batch queries, tax statements, or other company data), and the remaining tools are generic platform utilities that don't fill that gap.