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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds transparency by explaining the conditional outputs (authenticated true vs. connect_url). No contradictions, and it enhances understanding of 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?
Two concise sentences with no redundant wording. All information is essential and directly relevant to the tool's purpose.
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 output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values including authenticated flag, pending array, connect_url, and per-install URLs. Complete for a no-parameter status tool.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not introduce any ambiguity.
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?
Clearly states that the tool returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' which likely perform authentication actions. The description specifies the resource and action.
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?
Describes when it returns authenticated status vs. missing credentials, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'authenticate'. Implicitly clear for status checking, but could be more explicit about when to use this versus other siblings.
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 tools separate into distinct purposes: authenticate is for login/token acquisition, connect is for connection status, marketplace is for discovering and running MCPs, sit_caepi_consultar is for official Brazilian labor-source queries, while toolkit_info, report_bug, and show_version are general-purpose status/maintenance tools. Some overlap exists between authenticate/connect and marketplace/toolkit_info, but the descriptions delineate their boundaries sufficiently.
Tool names follow inconsistent conventions: five use camelCase (authenticate, connect, marketplace) while four use snake_case (sit_caepi_consultar, toolkit_info, report_bug, show_version). There is also no consistent verb-object structure: 'sit_caepi_consultar' mixes a domain prefix with a verb, and 'toolkit_info' uses a noun rather than a verb. No discernible pattern by which an agent could predict tool names.
Seven tools is a reasonable size for a server that combines authentication, an MCP catalog, a domain-specific query worker, and status/feedback functions. It is neither an extreme single-domain emptiness nor a bloated them need to be expanded, and each tool can be justified as part of the larger portal/toolkit vision.
The main gap is domain-specific coverage: for a 'CAEPI' server there is only one tool dedicated to official labor-question queries (sit_caepi_consultar), which may work but does not cover ongoing processes beyond, say, obtaining records/sharing workers or other closed processes. On the platform side, the marketplace and data are useful but the platform is more of a meta-platform than a complete official labor inspection itself.