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?
The annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying `authenticated:true` and `empty pending[]` on success, and the presence of `connect_url`/URLs when credentials are missing.
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 front-load the essential purpose and then give the two relevant state-dependent behaviors. There is no redundant wording, and every sentence contributes necessary context.
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?
With no input schema, no output schema, and straightforward annotations, the description covers the key user-facing behaviors of connection status and URL availability. It leaves the exact handling of partial provider-connection states implicit, but the explanation is generally sufficient for an AI agent deciding to call this 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?
There are zero parameters, so the input schema cannot add more meaning. The description gracefully avoids parameter duplication and instead clarifies the results, which is enough for a parameterless 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 begins with a specific verb and result resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also explains expected outcomes for connected vs. missing credentials, clearly distinguishing this as a status/inspection tool rather than the sibling `authenticate` 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?
The description outlines when the tool returns useful output (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like `authenticate`, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.
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 include a mix of platform management functions (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) and one domain-specific tool (tribunal_trt2_processo_consultar). While the platform tools are distinct, the 'marketplace' tool has a very broad and complex description that overlaps with 'toolkit_info' and 'connect' in terms of installation and connection status; also 'report_bug' is narrow and could be considered an action within a platform, but not clearly distinct from feedback features of other tools.
Most tools use a simple lowercase verb or noun (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), which is somewhat consistent but lacks a clear verb_noun pattern. The domain-specific tool 'tribunal_trt2_processo_consultar' follows a completely different naming convention (domain prefix + process + verb), breaking the pattern. The verbs are also vague (authenticate, connect) and mixing verbs and nouns.
The server has 7 tools, which is within a reasonable range. However, the tool set is very top-heavy on platform management and only has one actual domain-specific tool for the legal process consultation. For a server named 'Tribunal TRT2: Consulta Processual', the user would expect more tools related to the legal domain; the current count feels slightly over-scoped with platform tools and under-scoped for the domain.
The domain is likely about querying Brazilian labor court procesos (TRT2). However, the only domain tool is a single 'consultar' action, which is a read-only query. There are no tools for listing, filtering, updating, or managing anything related to procesos. The rest of the tools are for the MCP platform itself, not the legal domain, so the tool surface is severely incomplete for the stated purpose.