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 mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. Description adds specific behavioral details: authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. Consistent with 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 primary action, no unnecessary words. Efficiently covers both main scenarios.
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 parameterless status-check tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and conditional behavior. It gives enough detail for an agent to understand what to expect.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info (none needed), but explains the output semantics that depend on system state, which is appropriate for a no-arg tool.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific behavior for authenticated and missing-credential states. This is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use: to check connection status and obtain URLs. Implicitly indicates when alternatives might be relevant (e.g., authenticate), but no explicit exclusions or direct sibling comparisons.
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 distinct roles, but connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace.list_tools overlap in reporting connection status and installed tools, which could cause an agent to call the wrong one. The single domain tool is clearly separate, but the platform tools have some fuzzy boundaries.
Naming is inconsistent: it mixes English and Portuguese (authenticate vs bacen_inabilitados_consultar), snake_case (report_bug, show_version) and single words (connect, marketplace), and uses an unusual object-verb order in the Portuguese tool name. No clear pattern is maintained across the set.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range. However, the server is mostly platform utilities with only one domain-specific tool, making it feel like a meta-server rather than a focused BACEN domain tool, though this is not severe enough to score lower.
The single domain operation (CPF lookup) is complete for its narrow purpose, and the platform tools cover authentication, status, discovery, and support well. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no batch query or detailed historical data for inabilitados), but not enough to cause agent failures.