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, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral details by specifying exact return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs) that are not inferable from annotations alone.
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 long, immediately states the primary purpose, and then adds two concise conditional scenarios. Every word earns its place without fluff or repetition.
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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the two main return scenarios. However, it does not clarify behavior for partial provider connectivity (e.g., some connected, some missing), which could be a gap. Still, it is reasonably complete for a status 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). No parameter explanation is needed. Per rubric baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('connection status and URLs'). It distinguishes this from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by focusing on status/URL retrieval rather than authentication actions.
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 for when to use the tool (checking connection status or obtaining connection URLs when credentials are missing), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. Conditional language ('When all providers are connected', 'When credentials are missing') gives practical guidance.
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 domain-specific tool is clearly distinct, but several platform tools overlap in scope: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all relate to connection/auth status, and marketplace is a multi-purpose tool that could be confused with the others. Overall boundaries are mostly clear due to detailed descriptions, but not perfectly distinct.
Tool names are inconsistent: the domain tool uses a long snake_case phrase, while platform tools mix single nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace) with underscored compounds (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). No clear naming convention is applied across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the composition is mismatched: only one tool relates to the server's stated domain (Antecedentes Polícia Federal), while the other six are generic MCP platform utilities. This makes the count feel padded for a domain-specific server.
For the core domain, the single consult tool fully covers the necessary query operation, and the infrastructure tools (auth, connect, marketplace) support the workflow. Minor gaps exist like batch queries or PDF export, but the surface is generally complete for its stated purpose.