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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the two return scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). This explains what the agent can expect in different states, going 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, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), followed by clarifying scenarios. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and under what conditions. It covers the main scenarios and the fields returned (authenticated, pending, connect_url). Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters) and the annotations, the description is reasonably complete. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the meaning of 'providers' or the overall purpose of the status check, hence a 4 rather than 5.
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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist, and it correctly focuses on return 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, and explains the two distinct output states (all providers connected vs missing credentials). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate which likely initiates connections, and report_bug or show_version which have different purposes.
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 implies usage by describing when to expect different outputs (when all providers are connected vs credentials missing), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It leaves the agent to infer it should be called to check connection status, without guidance on when authenticate or other tools might be more appropriate.
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 ANVISA consultation tool is clearly distinct, but several platform tools overlap: authenticate and connect both concern connection/auth, and marketplace and toolkit_info both expose catalog/install state. Detailed descriptions help separate them, so misselection is possible but not constant.
Most tools use lowercase English single-word names, while the actual domain tool uses Portuguese snake_case (anvisa_processo_consultar). The set mixes languages and naming styles, with no consistent verb_noun pattern across the server.
Seven tools is not inherently too many, but six are generic platform infrastructure tools (auth, marketplace, version, toolkit state) and only one serves the declared ANVISA Processo purpose. The count is misleading because the server's apparent scope is a single domain lookup.
The named domain is represented by one generic consultar operation, with no explicit listing, filtering, or related process/document operations. For a simple citizen-available lookup this may be functional, but the surface is shallow and offers little workflow depth.