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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful conditional behavior: exactly what the response looks like when all providers are connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and when credentials are missing (connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). This goes beyond annotation data and clarifies state-dependent output.
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 three short sentences, each carrying information about the output in different states. It avoids filler and front-loads the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') before giving conditional details. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
This is a zero-parameter read-only status tool, and the description covers both key states (connected vs missing credentials) with expected fields. No output schema is present, so the description's explicit mention of authenticated, pending, and connect_url fills the gap. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema fully describes the input). With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly stays silent on inputs. Baseline 4 for zero parameters applies.
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 opens with the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'connection status and URLs,' making the read-only purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like authenticate, but the contrast between returning status and performing authentication is implied. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, so 4.
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 contexts: call this to check connection status, and when credentials are missing it tells you where to connect. It does not explicitly say 'use authenticate to connect' or list exclusions, so guidance is minimal but not absent. This matches implied usage.
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.
Each calculo_* tool targets a distinct legal/financial area (rent, alimony, FGTS, criminal sentencing, etc.), and their descriptions cite specific statutes that make the purpose clear. The only mild ambiguity is that calculo_atualizar and calculo_indice both handle generic monetary correction, while some INSS/FGTS tools share 'refund plus correction' semantics, but the specialized names avoid serious confusion.
The 16 domain tools follow a consistent 'calculo_<topic>' snake_case pattern, but calculo_atualizar uses a verb where the rest use nouns. The six platform tools break the pattern entirely with short English names (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), resulting in two readable but distinct naming conventions.
At 22 tools, the set is in the heavy range, and while the 16 legal calculators each justify their place, the six unrelated MCP platform utilities bloat the count for a server named 'Atualização Monetária'. The breadth of the legal calculators makes this borderline rather than excessive, but the overall scope is less focused than a well-scoped 10-15 tool server.
The toolkit covers a remarkably wide set of Brazilian legal calculations: monetary correction, index factors, alimony, labor severance, FGTS, INSS refunds, bank contract revisions, criminal sentencing, prison progression, family division, retirement benefits, and contribution time. Minor gaps exist, such as no standalone general-interest calculator and no OCR for FGTS statements yet, but agents can work around these with the generic tools.