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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that by detailing the conditional return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing). No contradiction with annotations; the description complements them with scenario-specific output 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') followed by the two conditional states. Every sentence adds distinct value with zero filler words or redundant phrasing.
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?
For a parameterless status tool, the description covers the main behavioral branches well. It could go slightly further by specifying the full response shape (e.g., what fields constitute the connection status, the structure of pending[]), but it places the key details about what happens in each state. Given no output schema exists, the description carries the return-format burden adequately.
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 schema description coverage is trivially 100% (empty properties object). With no params to document, the baseline is 4. The description instead focuses on output behavior, which is appropriate given the parameterless interface.
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 verb+resource ('Returns connection status and URLs') and distinguishes the tool's behavior across two states (all providers connected vs missing credentials). It differentiates well from siblings like authenticate and toolkit_info, making the tool's role as a status/health reporter unambiguous.
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 this is a read-only status check to run when you need connection state or URLs, but it never explicitly states when to use this versus authenticate or other siblings. The two-state behavior (connected vs missing credentials) gives contextual hints about what to expect, but no direct guidance on alternatives or 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.
The tribunal lookup tool is clearly distinct, and most platform tools have individual roles. However, marketplace is a broad multifunction tool that includes its own report_bug, connect, list_tools, and invoke behaviors, and connect/toolkit_info both report connection status, so an agent may need to read carefully to avoid picking the wrong entry point.
Names like report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info are clear snake_case, but the set mixes bare verbs (authenticate, connect), bare nouns (marketplace), and a long Portuguese domain name (tribunal_trt5_processo_consultar) that reverses the usual verb_noun order. The style is readable but not consistently patterned.
Seven tools is a reasonable count overall, but only one tool actually addresses the named Tribunal TRT5 purpose. The other six are generic platform and toolkit-management tools, so the toolset feels padded for a server that presents itself as a Brazilian court-case consultation service.
The single tribunal tool likely supports a basic case consultation, but the domain surface is thin: there is no clear support for different consultation modes, expanded case detail endpoints, or follow-up actions such as downloading or saving process information. Minor context writing around the main query could be enough for read-only use, but the missing tool shapes are notable.