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, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds conditional response details (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs connect_url with per-install URLs), which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no filler.
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?
For a zero-parameter status tool, the description explains return states adequately. It could clarify what 'pending' represents, but overall sufficient given annotations.
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?
Tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. Description adds no parameter details as none exist. Baseline 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?
Clearly states it returns connection status and URLs, with conditional behavior for connected vs missing credentials. Distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status, not action.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives. The description implies usage for checking connection status, but does not mention when not to use or direct to 'authenticate' for authentication flows.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: apf_rural_consultar is the only domain-specific query, while the rest are platform management functions. Slight overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info (both report connection status) and marketplace is a broad catch-all, but detailed descriptions make misselection unlikely.
Naming is inconsistent: apf_rural_consultar uses a snake_case domain prefix, while others are single verbs (authenticate, connect) or nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). No consistent verb_noun pattern; styles are mixed.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server mixes one domain-specific tool with six generic platform utilities, making it feel bloated relative to the 'APF Rural' label. Not excessive, but the scope is broad.
The APF Rural consultation tool covers all expected lookup methods (CPF, CNPJ, number, CAR), and the platform tools provide authentication, status, marketplace access, and feedback. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no detailed history beyond the single query), but core workflows are covered.