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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the two possible states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what URLs are returned. It doesn't describe the exact structure of the response beyond the mentioned fields, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable.
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 core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers the main behavior and the edge case (missing credentials) without any fluff.
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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two states and what URLs are returned. It could mention the format of the URLs or the exact structure of the response, but for a status-check tool with no inputs, this is sufficient.
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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output behavior instead.
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, and distinguishes between the authenticated state and the missing-credentials state. It is specific about the resource (connection status) and the output (authenticated flag, pending array, connect URLs). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the sibling names (authenticate, marketplace, etc.) suggest this is the status-check tool, and the description makes that clear.
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 it: to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (authenticate) suggests it's for checking rather than initiating auth. The guidance is adequate but not explicit about exclusions.
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 and detailed descriptions, but there are ambiguous boundaries around connection/auth status (`connect` vs `toolkit_info`) and the `marketplace` tool embeds sub-acts like `report_bug` and `list_tools` that overlap with separate tools. An agent can usually disambiguate, but not from names alone.
Names mix bare verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), a bare noun (`marketplace`), verb_noun forms (`report_bug`, `show_version`), noun_info (`toolkit_info`), and one long Portuguese domain-specific identifier (`tribunal_tjpr_processo_consultar`). The overall snake_case is readable, but the English/Portuguese and verb/noun mix is not a coherent pattern.
Seven tools is within a reasonable count range, but six are generic mcp.ai platform utilities and only one is the actual TJPR/court domain tool. The server therefore feels inflated with infrastructure while its real domain surface remains minimal.
The direct domain coverage is essentially one generic `consultar` lookup. For a public court-process query service, a read-only tool is natural, but there are no search/browse/auxiliary operations or follow-up capabilities, leaving notable gaps if the tool is meant to support broader court research.