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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing return fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) and scenarios that affect output. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the actual response structure, earning credit.
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 function ('Returns connection status and URLs'), then elaborates on edge cases. Every sentence provides meaningful information with no redundancy or vague 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main scenarios: all connected vs. missing credentials. It explains the key return fields and the presence of connect_url. Minor gaps include not explicitly describing partial connectivity states, but the mention of 'empty pending[]' implies non-empty for intermediate states. Overall, it is quite complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly avoids mentioning parameters, so it does not add confusion. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately explains that the tool requires no input.
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.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug. It also explains key output states, making the scope unmistakable.
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 does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. However, the conditional behavior (when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing) implies when the tool is useful. It lacks a direct comparison with sibling tools such as authenticate, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.
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 set mixes a single domain-specific tool with several generic platform utilities. connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and authenticate overlaps with connect's authentication flow, causing confusion about which tool to use for login/connection status.
Tool names are inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun snake_case (report_bug, show_version), and a Portuguese snake_case (auxilio_emergencial_consultar). No predictable pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but most tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are unrelated to the server's implied purpose of consulting Auxílio Emergencial. The count feels padded with platform utilities rather than domain-relevant functionality.
For the domain suggested by the server name, only one operation exists (auxilio_emergencial_consultar). There are no batch, update, or other related operations, and the other tools don't contribute to domain coverage, leaving obvious gaps for any real-world use case.