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 and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the exact return behavior in both connected and missing-credential cases, going beyond the 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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide conditional details. No wasted words.
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?
The description explains the return values in key scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials), which is adequate for a simple status tool. It could be slightly more explicit about intermediate states or the contents of pending[], but it covers the essentials.
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 does not need to add parameter information, as there are none.
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 details about the output in different scenarios. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication.
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 usage context is implied: it is for checking connection status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate', nor any exclusions mentioned.
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 have overlapping responsibilities: 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both return connection/status info, 'authenticate' handles session/auth concerns, and 'marketplace' bundles numerous actions (including install, subscribe, cancel, report_bug) that duplicate capabilities of 'report_bug' and other tools. Agents would struggle to choose the right tool without examining internal action parameters.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are bare verbs ('authenticate', 'connect'), some are verb_noun ('report_bug', 'show_version'), one is a noun ('marketplace'), and the domain-specific tool uses a long Portuguese composite ('transparencia_servidores_completa_consultar'). The mix of English platform verbs and a Portuguese domain name adds inconsistency.
Seven tools is within an acceptable range, but the 'marketplace' tool is a monolithic catch-all containing search, describe, invoke, install, list, subscribe, cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt management, effectively representing 12+ operations under one tool. This makes the actual surface area much larger than the count suggests, though the number itself is reasonable.
The server's stated purpose is federal employee transparency, but only a single CPF query tool is provided, with no listing, filtering, or batch operations. The platform admin tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are comprehensive, but they don't cover the transparency domain, which appears to be the server's primary focus. Many common transparency needs remain unsupported.