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 idempotentHint=true, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it specifies the exact response when all providers are connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and when credentials are missing (connect_url and per-install URLs). This goes beyond the annotation metadata.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a conditional explanation. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant information.
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?
The description covers the main states (all connected vs. credentials missing) and explains return fields. However, it does not explicitly address partial connection states, though the presence of 'pending[]' implies non-empty lists in that case. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple status-check tool with no output schema.
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 an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist, and no additional semantic explanation 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 states the tool 'Returns connection status and URLs' with specific detail about response fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than action-taking.
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 that this is a read-only status check, implicitly guiding use for verifying connection state. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions, though the conditional behavior makes the intended usage obvious.
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 'marketplace' tool is a catch-all that handles search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, and more, overlapping with 'toolkit_info' (installed state) and 'connect' (connection status). 'authenticate' and 'connect' also have blurry boundaries around authentication/connection.
Tool names mix Portuguese (anbima_certificado_consultar) and English (authenticate, connect, marketplace), and follow no consistent pattern: some are verbs, some are nouns, and 'marketplace' is a broad noun while others are simple imperatives.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the mix of one domain-specific tool and six generic platform tools makes the scope feel scattershot. The count matches a platform utility server, not a focused Anbima certification server.
For the implied domain of Anbima certification consultation, only one tool exists, leaving obvious gaps like listing certifications or retrieving detailed records. The platform tools are near-complete, but they don't serve the Anbima purpose, so the overall surface is severely incomplete for the named domain.