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 and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline for transparency is lower. The description adds valuable context about state-dependent return values (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), which goes 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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and the additional behavior is explained concisely.
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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description fully explains the return values in both success and failure scenarios. No output schema exists, but the description covers what the agent needs to know.
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?
Since the tool has zero parameters, the description has no obligation to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies here because no parameter documentation is needed.
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 identifies the tool as returning connection status and URLs, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings 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 description provides clear context on what the tool does and its behavior under different conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or point to alternative tools, so it lacks explicit 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 clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, version info, toolkit state, and vehicle history query. Some overlap exists between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' (both report connection state), but descriptions are sufficient to distinguish them. The marketplace tool is broad but internally coherent.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb-noun with underscore (report_bug, show_version), and a Portuguese domain-specific name (veiculo_historico_consultar). Mixing languages and grammatical forms makes the naming unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a platform utility server, but the server name suggests a dedicated vehicle history service, with only one tool actually related to that domain. The rest are generic MCP meta-tools, making the count seem padded or the scope unclear.
For a server named 'Histórico Veicular Nacional', only one tool addresses the apparent domain. There are no other vehicle-related operations (e.g., search by plate, list vehicles, different document types), and the remaining tools are unrelated platform utilities. This leaves significant gaps if the intended use is comprehensive vehicle history coverage.