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 and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the output states: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's conditional 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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause provides meaningful detail. There is no fluff or redundancy.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the two primary usage states (all connected vs credentials missing). A minor gap is the lack of detail about partial connection states, but for a simple status tool this is adequate.
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 schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 output conditions for connected and missing credentials. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which performs authentication rather than checking status.
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 if providers are connected and retrieve connect URLs when credentials are missing. It uses conditionals ('when all providers are connected' vs 'when credentials are missing') to guide usage, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.
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 distinct purposes, but `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection/status information, and `marketplace` is an overloaded catch-all covering search, invoke, install, and billing, making its boundaries fuzzy. The detailed descriptions help differentiate, but some confusion is possible.
Tool names are inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), noun-only (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese domain-specific name (trf_certidao_consultar). No clear pattern unifies the set, mixing English/Portuguese and different naming conventions.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the set mixes generic platform utilities (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) with a single domain-specific tool, making the count feel inflated for the stated purpose of the server (Certidão TRF). The count itself is not extreme, but the inclusion of unrelated infrastructure tools is questionable.
The domain appears to be querying Brazilian federal court certificates, but only one tool (`trf_certidao_consultar`) handles that. There is no way to manage past queries, retrieve documents, list available certificate types, or handle any other part of the certificate lifecycle. The remaining tools are about MCP platform management, not the domain, leaving significant gaps.