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 read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about conditional responses based on connection state (authenticated vs. missing credentials), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention side effects or required auth, but these are covered by 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or 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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description covers the main expected outcomes. However, it only describes the two extreme states (all connected vs. credentials missing) and does not address partial connection states, which could be a minor gap.
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, so there is no parameter information to add. Per baseline, a description is not expected to compensate for parameter documentation when there are none. The description correctly focuses on behavior.
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 conditions for different outputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking 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 implicitly explains when to use this tool: it tells the user what to expect when credentials are missing, implying this is the tool to check current connectivity. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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 single domain tool (antecedentes_policia_civil_consultar) is clearly distinct from the platform utility tools, which have well-separated purposes (authentication, connection status, marketplace search/invoke, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state). No two tools appear to perform the same action.
The domain tool uses a long Portuguese noun-phrase verb (antecedentes_policia_civil_consultar) while all other tools use short English imperative or noun phrases (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). This mixture of languages and naming patterns is inconsistent and makes the set feel disjointed.
Seven tools is within a typical range, but the set is heavily weighted toward generic MCP platform tools that have nothing to do with the server's stated domain (criminal background checks). Only one tool actually serves the domain, making the count feel inflated and unfocused for the apparent purpose.
The platform tools are comprehensive, covering authentication, connection, marketplace discovery, invocation, bug reporting, versioning, and toolkit state. However, the domain surface is severely thin—only a single query operation with no supporting options (e.g., validation, different certificate types, or status tracking). For a server named 'Antecedentes', this leaves notable domain gaps.