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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: when all providers are connected, it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]; when credentials are missing, it returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 primary function, and each sentence provides essential information. The conditional logic is compactly conveyed without unnecessary detail.
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?
With no output schema, the description explains the key return values for both all-connected and missing-credentials scenarios. It omits a potential partial-connection state, but the mention of 'empty pending[]' implies non-empty pending for partial states. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple status-check 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output rather than inputs.
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's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by focusing on status/URL retrieval rather than performing authentication. The conditional behavior further clarifies its role.
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: to check connection status and obtain URLs when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The presence of the 'authenticate' sibling implies a complementary relationship, but the description doesn't draw that contrast.
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 (antt_transportadora_consultar) is clearly distinct from the platform utilities. However, connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status information, creating slight overlap. The other tools serve separate purposes (auth, marketplace, bug reporting, version).
Tool names are inconsistent in style: the domain tool uses a long snake_case prefix, while the platform tools use short verbs (authenticate, connect), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), or verb_noun (report_bug, show_version). No clear pattern ties them together.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable, but the composition is unbalanced—only one tool directly serves the ANTT domain while the other six are generic platform/management tools. The set feels like a standard wrapper with a single domain functionality tacked on.
For the stated purpose of querying ANTT carrier regularity, the single consult tool covers the essential operation (by CPF, CNPJ, or RNTRC). It lacks any supplementary domain actions, but the core query is fully addressed. The platform tools fill typical admin needs, so no critical gaps for the primary use case.